- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44352-DB WA No. 1483 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.1483 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.G.S.RAJAPPA S/O. G.D.SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR SOCIETY, GODABANAHAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-577 555. …APPELLANT (BY Mr.SANDESH.C.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.JAYARAJ.D.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-577 555. Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44352-DB WA No. 1483 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 577 555. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 577 555. 5. SRI. M.R.MAHADEVAPPA, S/O. M.R.RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING BEHIND S.J.M. COLLEGE, DAVALAGIRI EXTENSION, 2ND STAGE, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 577 501. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.K.S.HARISH., AGA., FOR R1 TO 4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORAL ORDER DATED 11/07/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT IN DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION IN WP NO.12851/2025 AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL ACCORDINGLY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44352-DB WA No. 1483 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the application I.A No.1/2025, the same is allowed and the delay caused in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 11.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition in W.P.No.12851/2025 [KLR-RES], whereby the said petition was dismissed. 3. The appellant has preferred the said writ petition impugning the order dated 26.03.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner [respondent No.2], whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant in R.P.No.58/2022 is rejected. The appellant claims that he is the owner of the agricultural land to the extent of 2 acres 13 guntas falling in Sy.No.266/2, located at Godabanahal Village, Kasaba Hobli, Chitradurga Taluk and District [subject land]. The appellant claims that after the demise of his father, the subject land devolved on him and his brother namely, M.S.Byrappa [since deceased]. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44352-DB WA No. 1483 of 2025 Appellant states that in order to avoid any differences amongst themselves, they entered into a registered deed of partition dated 22.07.1998, whereby the subject land was divided equally and each of them were put in possession of their respective shares. The controversy relates to the entries made with respect to the share of the subject land which fell to the share of Late M.S.Byrappa. 4. Admittedly, Late M.S.Byrappa had executed a General Power of Attorney dated 20.03.2021 in favour of M.R.Madhavappa [respondent No.5]. Respondent No.5, thereafter, executed a registered sale deed dated 20.04.2021 in his favour. Thus, pursuant to the registered sale deed, Late M.S.Byrappa's share of the subject land is mutated in favour of respondent No.5 [M.R.Mahadevappa]. The appellant claims that the General Power of Attorney executed by his late brother and the subsequent sale deed have been executed fraudulently. He has also instituted a suit being O.S.No.96/2021, which is pending. 5. The appellant states that he filed an appeal before respondent No.2 in Appeal [Revision Petition] No.58/2022, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44352-DB WA No. 1483 of 2025 questioning the mutation entries entered in favour of Sri.M.R.Mahadevappa. The said appeal was rejected, as respondent No.2 found that the GPA and the sale deed were validly registered and the same are standing on record. Respondent No.2 has also noted that the said authority did not have jurisdiction to adjudicate matters of title to the civil property and the Civil Court alone would have the jurisdiction to decide the issues raised by the appellant. Thus, for the limited purpose of mutation, the name of the purchaser [respondent No.5] is required to be entered on the land records. 6. Learned Single Judge found no fault with the said decision and accordingly rejected the petition by the impugned order. 7. The impugned order cannot be faulted. The appellant is yet to establish his title to the Late Byrappa's share of the subject property. In the meantime, the mutation entries are required to be recorded on the basis of the documents placed on record, which, in this case are registered General Power of Attorney and registered sale deed in favour of respondent No.5. 8. The appeal is unmerited and accordingly dismissed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44352-DB WA No. 1483 of 2025 9. Pending application also stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE NC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30