- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40614-DB WA No. 623 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 623 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. H. VEERAPPA S/O LATE BASAVANYAPPA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/O GOGGA VILLAGE, HOSUR HOBLI SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA-577201. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGAR SUB DIVISION SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577401. 3. THE TAHSILDAR SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIKARIPURA, SHIMOGGA DISTRICT-577429. 4. GADIGEMMA W/O MALLAPPA GOWDA D/O SHIDDAPPAGOWDA @ SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40614-DB WA No. 623 of 2025 R/O MARAVALLI VILLAGE SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577429. SHIMOGA DISTRICT. 5. HALESHAPPA S/O SHIDDAPPAGOWDA @ SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/O GOGGA VILLAGE, HOSUR HOBLI, SHIKARIPURA TALUK-577429. 6. MAHESHAPPA S/O SHIDDAPPAGOWDA @ SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/O GOGGA VILLAGE, HOSUR HOBLI, SHIKARIPURA TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577429. 7. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O SHIDDAPPAGOWDA @ SIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O GOGGA VILLAGE, HOSUR HOBLI, SHIKARIPURA TALUK SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577429. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R-1 - R-3; SMT. MAJULADEVI R KOMADALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.34985/2014 DATED 20/03/2025 AND PASS ANY OTHER SUITABLE ORDER/S. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40614-DB WA No. 623 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) The appellant in this writ appeal has challenged the legality and correctness of the order dated 20.03.2025 passed in W.P.No.34985/2014 whereby the learned Single judge has dismissed the petition filed by the appellant. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the mother of respondent Nos.4 to 7 in the writ petition one Basamma filed suit in O.S.No.106/2006 against the appellant for injunction and the said suit was dismissed. As such, the Tahsildar mutated the revenue entries in the name of the appellant vide M.R.NO.42/2011-12. The said order was challenged by the respondents before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, after considering the aspect that the mutation entries was only based on the dismissal of the injunction suit in O.S.No.106/2006, has set aside the order of the Tahsildar and restored the name of the respondents in the revenue records. The said order was challenged by the appellant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40614-DB WA No. 623 of 2025 before the learned Single Judge before this Court. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has observed in paragraphs 3 and 4 as under: "3. Admittedly, even according to the Assistant Commissioner the change of mutation made in respect of MR.No.42/2011-12 only on the basis of dismissal of suit filed by Basamma in O.S.No.106/2006 which incidentally only for injunction this was clearly illegal. 4. It is settled law that the revenue entries can be mutated only on the basis of a registered instrument, inheritance or by a decree of competent Court. The dismissal of suit for injunction would not amount to grant of declaration that the petitioner was the owner of land in question. The Assistant Commissioner was therefore justified in setting aside the order of mutation and restoring the name of the petitioner's vendor's predecessor-in-title. I find no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. The petition is therefore dismissed." 3. We have carefully perused the order of the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner so also the documents placed before us. On perusal, it could be gathered that the Tahsildar has changed the revenue entries only relying on the dismissal of the injunction suit filed by mother of respondent Nos.4 to 7. As such, the Assistant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40614-DB WA No. 623 of 2025 Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of the Tahsildar and re-entered the name of the vendor's predecessor-in-title. It is trite that the revenue entries cannot be changed on the dismissal of the suit, that too, a bare injunction suit. 4. In that view of the matter, we find no error in the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner which was also confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner and the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, writ appeal lacks merit and stands dismissed. Pending I.As., if any, does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17