- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47350 WP No. 285 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 285 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. MUNIYAMMA W/O THIMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE TEKAL HOBLI, MALUK TALUK KOLAR - 563 130 2. JAYALAKSHMI D D/O GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O SHETTIHALLI VILLAGE TEKAL HOBLI, MALUK TALUK KOLAR - 563 130 3. BABU S/O GOWRAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/O RAJENDRA LAYOUT NEAR UNIQUE SCHOOL MARUTHI EXTENSION MALUR TOWN KOLAR - 563 130 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAYAKA S PANDIT., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47350 WP No. 285 of 2025 AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 130 2. THE TAHSILDAR MALUR TALUK, MALUR KOLAR - 563 130 3. REVENUE INSPECTOR NEELAKANTA AGRAHARA MALUR HOBLI, MALUR KOLAR - 563 130 4. RENUKAMMA W/O MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 5. UMA D/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 6. DEEPA D/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 7. SRINIVAS S/O MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 8. VENKATESH S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47350 WP No. 285 of 2025 9. HEMA D/O MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.4 TO 9 ARE ALL RESIDENTS OF RAJENAHALLI VILLAGE MASTHI HOBLI MALUR TALUK KOLAR - 563 130. 10. G E RAME GOWDA S/O ERIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O ADARSHA NAGAR OPPOSITE GOVT COLLEGE MALUR TOWN KOLAR - 563 130 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI K. SHRIHARI, ADVOCATE FOR R10; SRI K. ANANDARAM, ADVOCATE FOR R4, R6 TO R9; SRI B.C. VENKATESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 21.11.2024 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR IN RA NO. 96/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE RA NO. 96/2024 FILED BY THE R-10 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47350 WP No. 285 of 2025 ORAL ORDER Petitioners have called in question the correctness of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 21.11.2024 in R.A.No. 96/2024 which was filed by respondent No.10 calling in question the correctness of M.R. No. H7/2022-23 dated 07.09.2023. 2. M.R. No. H7/2022-23 is the mutation entry whereby the revenue entry of Sy. No. 37/1 standing in the joint names of Gowramma W/o. Muniyappa and Muniyamma W/o. Thimmarayappa came to be altered by showing: a) Sy. No. 37/1 in the name of Gowramma W/o. Muniyappa to an extent of 1 acre 05.08 guntas b) Sy. No. 37/5 in the name of Muniyamma W/o. Thimmarayappa to an extent of 1 acre 05.08 guntas 3. Respondent No.10 - Sri. G.E. Rame Gowda is stated to have entered into an agreement with Sri. M.C. Muniswamy seeking to purchase the land which is the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47350 WP No. 285 of 2025 subject matter of the present proceedings. As the agreement of sale was not honoured, suit for specific performance has been filed in O.S.No. 224/2007 and later renumbered as O.S.No.213/2011. The said suit has been decreed in O.S.213/2011 on 16.07.2024. 4. The impleading application by the petitioners seeking to implead themselves in the suit for specific performance in O.S.No. 213/2011 has been dismissed as per the order dated 28.05.2012. During the pendency of O.S.No. 224/2007, O.S.106/2008 for partition amongst the family members of Muniswamy came to be filed and compromised without making the respondent No.10 as party. 5. It is specifically asserted that the mother of petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 i.e., Gowramma given a consent letter dated 01.09.2008 and received a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-, though such assertion has been disputed. 6. The twin primary contentions raised were: - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47350 WP No. 285 of 2025 a) There was already an order upon challenge to M.R. No. H7/2022-23 which was dismissed by order dated 07.09.2023. Accordingly, it was submitted that the Assistant Commissioner could not have had a relook at it. b) M.R.T6/2022-23 was not challenged but set aside by the Assistant Commissioner in the impugned order. 7. Though the order of the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No. 136/2023 was passed on 07.09.2023 in an appeal filed by Smt. Renukamma, it is only thereafter O.S.No. 213/2011 i.e., suit for specific performance came to be decreed on 16.07.2024. It is necessary to note that the petitioner (respondent No.10) was not arrayed as a party in the proceedings in R.A.No.136/2023. As on filing of R.A.No. 96/2024 i.e., 25.10.2024, O.S.No. 213/2011 had been decreed conferring rights on respondent No.10. This by itself afforded cause that permitted assailing of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47350 WP No. 285 of 2025 earlier mutation, though such mutation was upheld at an earlier point of time. 8. As rightly observed by the Assistant Commissioner in his order, respondent No.10 ought to have been heard in the capacity of persons interested in terms of Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 when mutation was effected in terms of the compromise decree and registered partition. 9. The petitioners herein as on the date of entering into a compromise in the partition suit and entering into a registered partition were aware of the proceedings for specific performance. Their application to be impleaded in such proceedings was rejected and this Court while disposing of the writ petitions in W.P.No. 20440/2012 c/w 20441/2012 filed by the petitioners challenging the order dismissing their application to be impleaded, had observed that the reliance by the petitioners on the decree in the partition suit was a - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47350 WP No. 285 of 2025 'collusive decree in a suit initiated without making the present respondent No.10 as a party'. 10. In light of all such facts as well and in light of the conduct of the petitioners of trying to defeat the rights of specific performance which was pending adjudication which later culminated in passing of a decree in O.S.No. 213/2011, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioners are disentitled to seek for judicial review of the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 11. Further, by virtue of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the matter has been remitted for reconsideration regarding effecting of mutation entries after notice and hearing of all concerned which order in the background of the factual matrix does not call for interference. As regards the contention that M.R.T/6- 2022-23 not having been challenged and still being set aside, it is to be observed that the said revenue entry formed the basis of M.R.H-7-2022-2023 which was a - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47350 WP No. 285 of 2025 subsequent revenue entry and both of which deserve reconsideration in light of the right to specific performance having been crystallized by way of a decree. 12. Accordingly, in light of all such facts, no case is made out for interference with the order impugned. 13. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VP