- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38062 WP No. 22085 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 22085 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT JAYALAKMAMMA W/O.LATE.SRI.H.LAKSHMAIAH REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 2. SMT. L. MANULA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O.LATE.SRI. GOPALA REDDY, PRESENTLY R/A.NO.90/2, 15TH CROSS, APPA REDDY PALYA, INDIRANAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 038. 3. SMT.L.CHANDRAKANTHI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O.LATE. SRI.N.SURESH BABU, R/A KUDLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK-560 068. 4. SRI.L.PURUSHOTHAM REDDY. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O.LATE. SRI.H.LAKSHMAIAH REDDY. 5. SRI.L.RAGHURAM REDDY. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O.LATE.SRI.H.LAKSHMAIAH REDDY Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38062 WP No. 22085 of 2025 PETITIONERS NO.1, 4 & 5 ARE ALL R/A NO. 1/1, THIMMA REDDY ROAD, APPA REDDY PALYA, INDIRANAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 038. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K M JAGANATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI L VENKATESH REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O.LATE. SRI.H.LAKSHMAIAH REDDY, R/A.NO.39/24, THIMMA REDDY ROAD, APPA REDDY PALYA, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038. 2. THE TAHSILDAR. BENGALURU EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU-560036. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHWIN KUMAR M.S., ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT. RADHA B.P., AGA. FOR R2 & R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH AND DATED 17/02/2025, PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER R.A (BE). 30/2025 ALLOWING THE APPEAL FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-P, BY ISSUE OF A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION AS THE CASE MAY BE AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38062 WP No. 22085 of 2025 CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE MUTATION ENTRIES IN M.R.NO.40/2002-03, M.R.NO.23/2003-04 & M.R.NO.H13/2015- 16 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent - Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-P and the consequent mutation order dated 17.02.2025 in MR No.T12/2024-25 passed by the Tahasildar. 2. Learned counsel points out to Annexure-N and submits that Annexure-N is a requisition made by the 1st respondent to the 2nd respondent - Tahasildar on 05.08.2024 requesting to delete the mutation entry in MR No.40/2002-03 and MR No.23/2003-04 and restore the katha in the name of the 2nd respondent in terms of mutation order in IHC No.4/1989-90. Similar - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38062 WP No. 22085 of 2025 representation was also given by the respondent No.1 to the respondent No.3 - Assistant commissioner on 11.11.2024 at Annexure-O. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.3 -Assistant Commissioner has registered the said representation given by the respondent No.1 as an appeal under Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, where the Tahasildar, Bangalore East Taluk, is shown as the respondent. Learned counsel points out from the impugned order at Annexure-P that the Assistant Commissioner has noticed the contention of the respondent No.1 that H.Lakshmaiah Reddy and his second wife and their children created concocted documents during the year 2003 by way of Gift deed and pursuant to which mutation entries were made in M.R.No.40/2002- 2003 and same was challenged by the respondent No.1 herein in R.A.No.375/ 2004-2005 before the Assistant Commissioner. It is contended by the respondent No.1 and recorded by the Assistant Commissioner that the said - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38062 WP No. 22085 of 2025 R.A.No.375/2004-2005 was allowed by setting aside the order in M.R.No.40/2002-03 and M.R. No.23/2003-04 and the name of the respondent No.1 herein was restored in the RTC. However, Sri H.Lakshmaiah Reddy challenged the same before the Deputy Commissioner in R.P. No.31/2006-07, which was also dismissed. It is contended by the respondent No.1 that although such orders were passed by the Assistant Commissioner setting aside the mutation entries, nevertheless the name of the respondent No.1 was never restored in the revenue records. The Assistant Commissioner has recorded that although notice is issued to the Tahasildar, he has remained absent. The Assistant Commissioner has proceeded to record that he has carefully perused the pleadings in the memorandum of appeal and documents produced by the respondent No.1 herein, although no such appeal was filed by the respondent No.1. 3. Learned counsel submits that although the Assistant Commissioner has noticed the fact that the name - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38062 WP No. 22085 of 2025 of Sri H.Lakshmaiah Reddy was entered in the revenue records, he didn’t think it fit to direct the respondent No.1 to implead Sri H.Lakshmaiah Reddy or his legal heirs. Nevertheless, the Assistant Commissioner has proceeded to pass the impugned order without issuing notice to Sri H.Lakshmaiah Reddy or his legal heirs, while setting aside the mutation entries in MR No.40/2002-03 and MR No.23 of 2003-04 and the subsequent MR No.H13/2015-16, while directing the Tahasildar to cancel all the RTCs in respect of Survey Nos.22/1, 22/10, 22/11, 22/12 and 22/13 with a further direction to amalgamate all the said survey numbers into the original Survey No.22/1 measuring 13 acres 10 guntas, ‘B’ Karab 31 guntas and the remaining 12 acres 19 guntas to be restored in the name of the respondent No.1 Shri L.Venkatesh Reddy, S/o H.Lakshmaiah Reddy, as per the earlier mutation entry in IHC 4/1989-90 in column Nos.9 and 12 (2) of the RTC. 4. Learned counsel submits that it is clear from the impugned order Annexure-P that the then Assistant - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38062 WP No. 22085 of 2025 Commissioner, who passed the order has scant respect for the law and he has not cared to issue notice to the person, who would be aggrieved if their names are removed from the revenue records. The Assistant Commissioner has thrown into winds the principles of natural justice and has passed the impugned order to benefit respondent No.1 for obvious reasons. 5. This Court had directed the Assistant Commissioner who had passed the impugned order to file an affidavit before this Court meeting the allegations made by the petitioners. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner filed an affidavit before this Court on 12.09.2025 stating that an appeal came to be filed at the hands of the 1st respondent herein invoking the provisions contained in Section 136(2) of the Act. It is submitted that on 05.08.2024 an application was made to the Tahasildar, Bangalore East Taluk seeking cancellation of mutation entries in M.R.No.40/2002-03 and M.R.No.23/2003-04 and to restore back to original IHC - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38062 WP No. 22085 of 2025 04/1989-90 showing the name of the original kathedar. It is stated in paragraph No.6 that pursuant to the representation given to the Special Tahasildar, the Tahasildar has issued an endorsement dated 08.11.2024 stating that such cancellation of mutation entry cannot be made based on representation. Accordingly, the respondent No.1 herein preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. It is stated in paragraph No.7 that the respondent No.1 herein being the appellant before the Assistant Commissioner arrayed Tahasildar, Bangalore East Taluk as the respondent and the appeal came to be numbered as RA(BE);30/2025. It is stated in paragraph 9 of the affidavit that the appeal was taken up for hearing on 29.01.2025 and notice was issued to the respondent- Tahsildar. 6. The matter was heard and certain documents were produced and the matter was posted for orders. It is stated in paragraph 12 that the respondent No.1 herein/the appellant before the Assistant Commissioner - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38062 WP No. 22085 of 2025 had suppressed material facts before the authority and claimed rights in the disputed property. The Assistant Commissioner has proceeded to state that he has squarely concluded the matter according to his knowledge and wisdom. The Assistant Commissioner has also stated in paragraph 14 that as per his understanding of the Law, it is clear that the revenue authorities cannot enter into title disputes. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits on instructions that the respondent No.1 himself had drafted the appeal memo and filed it before the Assistant Commissioner and he was not aware of the intricacies of law and therefore his failure to implead the petitioners herein as party respondents before the Assistant Commissioner, should be condoned as an act without any malice. 8. This Court has found that during the course of these proceedings, the then Assistant Commissioner has - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38062 WP No. 22085 of 2025 passed similar orders and atleast five writ petitions have been filed bringing to the notice of this Court such orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, where only the Tahasildar is impleaded as party respondent while the Assistant Commissioner has proceeded to remove the names of the private individuals, who were kathedars, from the RTCs. Such an act on the part of the Assistant Commissioner directing removal of the names of the kathedars without even issuing notice to such persons, who would be aggrieved of such an act is unpardonable. This Court entertained the writ petitions although objections were raised at the hands of the learned AGA that an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act is revisable before the Deputy commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act. Such objections have been over ruled at the hands of this Court having regard to the manner in which the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned orders setting at - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38062 WP No. 22085 of 2025 naught mutation orders that were passed more than a few decades ago. 9. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders at Annexure-P and the consequential mutation order in MR No.T12/2024-25 passed by the respondent No.2 -Tahasildar, pursuant to the impugned orders at Annexure-P passed by the Assistant Commissioner, are quashed and set aside. The respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2 - Tahasildar are hereby directed to restore the entries in terms of MR No.40/2002-03 *and M.R.No.23/2003-04 in the RTCs, as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. A copy of this order shall also be forwarded to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka and the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka to take appropriate action against the then * Corrected vide Court Order dated 12.03.2026 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38062 WP No. 22085 of 2025 Assistant Commissioner, Sri Pramod.L.Patil, who is presently the General Manager, KITS, Department of ITBT, Government of Karnataka, having regard to the observations made by this Court. Action taken report shall also be placed before this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE KLY CT: JL