- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44706 WP No. 15479 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 15479 OF 2021 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA DAUGHTER OF PATEL ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT HALEPETE, NEAR VEERABHADRESHWARA TEMPLE, BERURU TOWN, KADUR TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577548. 2. SMT. SHASHIKALA WIFE OF LATE P. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTEGANGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK-577204. 3. SRI. P.E. SHIVAPRAKASH SON OF LATE PATEL ESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTEGANGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK-577204. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. Digitally signed by VIJAYA P Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44706 WP No. 15479 of 2021 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA SUB DIVISION, SHIMOGA DISTRICT - 577201. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA SUB-DIVISION, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577201. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, SHIMOGA TALUK, SHIMOGA - 577201. 5. SRI. P. N. JAYADEVAPPA, SON OF LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTEGANGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK 577204 6. SRI. P. N. BASAVARAJAPPA SON OF LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTEGANGURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK- 577204. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. R.GOPAL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.08.2019 PASSED IN CASE NO.PDA.298/2017-18 ON THE FILE OF THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA SUB-DVN, SHIMOGA VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.11.2020 PASSED IN CASE NO.R.MISC.41/2019-20 ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA DISTRICT, SHIMOGA VIDE ANNEXURE-S. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44706 WP No. 15479 of 2021 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioners have sought for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga at Annexure-Q and has also sought for setting aside of the order of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-S, whereby the order of the Assistant Commissioner was in effect upheld. 2. The facts made out are that both the petitioners and the respondents No.5 and 6 claim right through the propositus - Nanjappa. The genealogy as claimed by respondents No.5 and 6 is extracted as below: Nanjappa Gowramma Basamma Patel Eshwarappa Erappa Gowda Jayadevappa Neelamma Basavarajappa Basamma (Wife) Gowramma (P1) Shivaprakash (P2) Chandrashekar (P3) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44706 WP No. 15479 of 2021 3. It is made clear that the counsel for the petitioners expressly states that the genealogy is in terms of the stand of the respondents and he does not admit such genealogy. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this genealogy has been admitted by the petitioners in proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner in their objections filed to the appeal. However, this still remains a disputed question. 4. For the limited purpose of adjudicating the present writ petition, it could be stated that the facts made out are that the petitioners claim rights through Gowramma, the first wife of Nanjappa. It is further submitted that Gowramma had two sons namely Patel Eshwarappa and Erappa Gowda. Erappa Gowda is stated to have died issueless and after the death of Patel Eshwarappa, revenue entries with respect to the lands were entered into the name of Basamma wife of Patel Eshwarappa, the petitioners approached the Tahsildar for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44706 WP No. 15479 of 2021 effecting of revenue entries in the capacity of legal heirs of Basamma, wife of Patel Eshwarappa. 5. It is the case of the respondents that Nanjappa was the propositus and Nanjappa's second wife was Basamma and that respondents No.5 and 6 claim through the second wife of Nanjappa. It is their further case that the land was regranted under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act to Nanjappa. If that were to be so, in terms of the genealogy as extracted above, the respondents No.5 and 6 are also entitled as successors in common with the petitioners and accordingly, the revenue entries ought to have been maintained in joint names. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that even such assertion cannot be admitted as certain properties were regranted in the name of Gowramma, wife of Nanjappa. 7. However, all these facts are disputed and what could be taken note for the limited purpose of disposal of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44706 WP No. 15479 of 2021 the writ petition is that the petitioners claim right through Basamma wife of Patel Eshwarappa, while the respondents No.5 and 6 claim rights through the second wife of Nanjappa i.e., Basamma. 8. While the Tahsildar has accepted the claim of the petitioners and has directed effecting of revenue entries in the names of the petitioners jointly, however, when the said order challenged before the Assistant Commissioner was set aside and the order of the Assistant Commissioner was affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner was of the view that both sides being legal heirs of Nanjappa eventually tracing right through Nanjappa, the revenue entries ought to have been in joint names and such finding was also affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. 9. It must be noted at the outset that in terms of Annexure-L to M9, admittedly the revenue records as on the date of death of Basamma wife of Patel Eshwarappa, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44706 WP No. 15479 of 2021 stood in her name. Such fact is borne out from the records. Upon the death of Basamma wife of Patel Eshwarappa, the petitioners had made a joint request for transfer of revenue entries in their names claiming to be the legal heirs of Basamma wife of Patel Eshwarappa. The genealogy of the petitioners claiming to be the children of Patel Eshwarappa and Basamma is not in dispute though the rest of the genealogy as regards Basamma the second wife of Nanjappa is disputed by the petitioners. Once the revenue entries are entered in the name of Basamma wife of Patel Eshwarappa, after the death of Basamma, the right of the petitioners to have records entered in their names, appears to be an acceptable position. 10. The claim of the respondents No.5 and 6 that they are also claiming rights through Nanjappa with respect to the property which the branch of the petitioners also claim title and accordingly, revenue entries must stand in the name of both the branches jointly is an aspect that requires consideration. The revenue authorities - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44706 WP No. 15479 of 2021 exercise limited jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate whether there are disputes. 11. The petitioners dispute the relationship of Basamma, the second wife of Nanjappa. Though learned counsel for respondents No.5 and 6 submits that there are records which would demonstrate that the petitioners have admitted the relationship, that very aspect is controverted by the petitioners. When such is the case, the revenue authorities cannot enter into adjudication of the inter-se rights of the branch of Gowramma, first wife of Nanjappa and the branch of the second wife of Nanjappa i.e., Basamma. 12. In fact, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they dispute the relationship of Basamma with Nanjappa as second wife. When all such disputed questions arise, the revenue authorities cannot enter into adjudication which is a settled position of law. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44706 WP No. 15479 of 2021 13. From the factum of the revenue records standing as on the date of death of Basamma wife of Patel Eshwarappa in her name, the only course open for the revenue authority i.e., the Tahsildar would be to enter the names of the petitioners jointly on the premise that the petitioners are the legal heirs of Basamma and such summary adjudication and finding ought to rest, while legally it open for anybody disputing such entry has been made for respondents No.5 and 6 to assert the rights before the Civil Court. 14. Accordingly, orders of the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-Q and that of the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-R are set aside and the order of the Tahsildar at Annexure-N is upheld. It is made clear that this Court has limited itself for adjudication only insofar as the dispute relating to revenue entries are concerned and has not entered into the merits of the contention regarding legal heirship of both the branches nor has recorded a conclusive finding regarding - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44706 WP No. 15479 of 2021 relationship of both branches to Nanjappa or rights over the property. All contentions are kept open. 15. While making it clear that if respondents No.5 and 6 intend to assert rights and have their names entered by the Tahsildar in joint names, it is for the respondents to approach the Civil Court and obtain necessary redressal of their legal grievance by way of partition / declaration or in appropriately constituted proceedings and upon conclusion of such proceedings, it is needless to state the revenue authorities are to make necessary entries. 16. In light of both sides having contested the matters and rival claims of possession having been made, it is directed that the parties to maintain status-quo regarding possession for a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. 17. Needless to state, that the protection granted is not be construed to be protection granted on adjudication - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44706 WP No. 15479 of 2021 and only as a transitional arrangement. The trial Court not be influenced by the limited protection granted, if proceedings are initiated. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE MCR