- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25955 WP NO.58884 OF 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.58884 OF 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. B. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE B. SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS. 2. SHRI. B. SRINIVASAIAH @ SRINIVASAN S/O LATE B. SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. 3. SHRI. B. GOPAL RAO S/O LATE B. SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 4. SHRI. B. RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE B. SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 5. SHRI. B. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE B. SUBBAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. PETITIONERS 1 TO 5 ARE R/AT VARTHUR VILLAGE & HOBLI, NEAR POST OFFICE, BANGALORE EAST TALUK - 560 087. 6. SRI. N. SRINIVASA REDDY S/O LATE NANJAPPA REDDY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.32/1-C, 110 FEET ROAD, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 095. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25955 WP NO.58884 OF 2015 7. SRI. V. SRINIVAS S/O LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.79, 5TH CROSS, KANNIKA NAGARA LAYOUT, BOMMASANDRA INDUSTRIAL AREA, HENNAGARA POST, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105. 8. M/S C.K. BRAD PROJECTS (PVT) LTD. NO.7 & 8, 27TH MAIN, H.S.R. LAYOUT, 1ST SECTOR, BENGALURU - 560 102. REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, SRI. C. BRIJESH REDDY. …PETITIONERS (SRI. T.N. VISWANATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 009. 4. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 086. 5. CHIKKA MUNISHAMAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25955 WP NO.58884 OF 2015 5(a). SMT. VENKATAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. RESPONDENTS 5(b) to 5(g). 5(b). SRI. GIRIRAJ GOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 5(c). SRI. VENKATARAJU S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 5(d). SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 5(a) TO 5(d) ARE R/AT NO.171, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, SIDDAPURA, WHITEFILED POST, BENGALURU - 560 066. 5(e). SMT. RUKKAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. 5(e)(a). SRI. PRAKASH S/O RUKKAMMA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 5(e)(b). SMT. ANITHA W/O SUDARSHAN AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS. 5(e)(c). SMT. SUNITHA W/O SRI. VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 5(e)(d). SMT. GEETHA W/O SRI. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25955 WP NO.58884 OF 2015 5(e)(e). SMT. RASHMI W/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 5(e)(a) AND 5(e)(e) ARE R/AT NO.171, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, SIDDAPURA, WHITEFILED POST, BENGALURU - 560 066. 5(f). SMT. SHANTHAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 5(f)(1). VENKATESH S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGE: MAJOR R/AT NO.84, KOLATHUR VILLAGE AND POST, BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 5(g). SMT. JAYAMMA W/O CHANDRAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.171, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS, SIDDAPURA, WHITEFILED POST, BENGALURU - 560 066. 5(h). SMT. ANUSUYAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LRS. 5(h)(1). RAJANNA H.K. S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. 5(h)(2). PRASANNA K.R. S/O RAJANNA H.K. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 5(h)(3). VENUGOPAL K.R. S/O RAJANNA H.K. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25955 WP NO.58884 OF 2015 RESPONDENTS 5(h)(1) to 5(h)(3) ARE R/AT NO.84, KOLATHUR VILLAGE AND POST, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 6. SMT. THAYAMMA W/O LATE MUNIBACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 7. SHRI. RAMAIAH S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS. 8. SHRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS. 9. SHRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 6 TO 9 ARE R/AT SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, NEAR POST OFFICE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 560 087. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S. SRIVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01ST DECEMBER, 2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.REVISION PETITION.165/2015-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-N, WHEREIN THE ORDER DATED 30TH JUNE, 2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.R.A.(BE)122/2010-11 IS SET-ASIDE IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.4 MEASURING 20 GUNTAS OUT OF 4 ACRE 32 GUNTAS SITUATED AT THUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25955 WP NO.58884 OF 2015 VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT, AND FURTHER BE PLEASED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEAIRNG IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 01st December, 2015 (Annexure-N) passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.165/2015-16, wherein, the order dated 30th June, 2015 (Annexure-M) passed by the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner in Case No.R.A.(BE)122/2010-11 has been set- aside. 2. The facts in nutshell for adjudication of this petition are that the father of the petitioners 1 to 5 viz. Subbaiah was the owner of the land bearing Survey No.4 of Thubarahalli Village, Bengaluru East Taluk to an extent of 4 acre 32 guntas. The said Subbaiah had sold the land to an extent of 2 acres out of 4 acre 32 guntas in favour of Hanumanthappa, father of the respondents 5 to 9 as per registered Sale Deed dated 22nd - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25955 WP NO.58884 OF 2015 November, 1937 (Annexure-A). Thereafter, again the said Subbaiah, sold the land to an extent of 1 acre 6 guntas in favour of the aforesaid Hanumantappa as per registered Sale deed dated 15th January, 1956 (Annexure-B) and on the very same day, Subbaiah had sold another extent of land measuring 1 acre 6 guntas in favour of one Munishamappa, brother of Hanumanthappa as per the registered Sale Deed dated 15th January, 1956 (Annexure-C). It is stated in the petition that the father of the petitioner viz., Subbaiah in all, sold an extent of 4 acre 12 guntas as per aforementioned registered Sale Deeds and retained the land to an extent of 20 guntas for himself. The father of the petitioners viz., Subbaiah died and thereafter, the petitioners are in cultivation of the land in question. It is also stated that, during the year-2010, respondents 5 to 9 have made an attempt to interfere with the possession of the petitioners based on the revenue entries made in MR No.4/1980-81 dated 29th September, 1980 made by the respondent No.4-Tahsildar to an extent of 2 acre 32 guntas including the 20 guntas of the land belonging to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners 1 to 5, have challenged the same before the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25955 WP NO.58884 OF 2015 in Case No. R.A.(BE)122/2010-11, claiming right in respect of 20 guntas of land which has been retained by the father of the petitioners 1 to 5. 3. It is also averred in the writ petition that the respondents 5 to 9 have refused to give share to the family members of Munishamappa, resulting in filing of suit by the children of Munishamappa in Original Suit No.4756 of 2005, seeking partition and separate possession in respect of the subject land and the said suit came to be dismissed, by judgment and decree dated 16th October, 2009 (Annexure-E). It is also stated that the Regular First Appeal No.133/2010 was filed by the children of Munishamppa before this Court, challenging the judgment and decree dated 16th October, 2009 passed in Original Suit No.4756 of 2005 and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 19th August, 2010 (Annexure-F). 4. It is the further case of the petitioners that the father of the petitioners 1 to 5 viz., Subbaiah has retained 20 guntas of land and therefore, the entry made in the revenue records is illegal and as such, the petitioners have preferred appeal before the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25955 WP NO.58884 OF 2015 Case No.R.A.(BE)122/2010-11 and the respondent No.3, by order dated 14th March, 2013 (Annexure-H), allowed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the same, respondents 5 to 9 preferred Revision Petition No.60/2013-14 before the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner and the respondent No.2, by order dated 17th February, 2014 (Annexure-J), dismissed the revision petition. Being aggrieved by the same, respondents 5 to 9 preferred Writ Petition No.13371-75 of 2014 before this Court and this Court, by order 07th April, 2015 (Annexure-L), remanded the matter to the respondent No.3 to consider the case of the parties on merits. Pursuant to remand made by the respondent No.2, the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, after considering the material on record, by order dated 30th June, 2015 (Annexure-M), allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioners 1 to 5 in Case No.R.A.(BE)122/2.10-11. Being aggrieved by the same, respondents 5 to 9 preferred Revision Petition No.165/2015-16 before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, after considering the material on record, by order dated 01st December, 2015 (Annexure-N) allowed the Revision Petition and as such, set-aside the order passed by the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25955 WP NO.58884 OF 2015 respondent No.3 dated 30th June, 2015 (Annexure-M). Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners preferred this writ petition. 5. Heard Sri. T.N. Viswanath, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4; and Sri. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. Rajendra, appearing for respondents 5 to 9. 6. Sri. T.N. Viswanath, learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the father of the petitioners 1 to 5 viz., Subbaiah was owner in possession of total land to an extent of 4 acre 32 guntas and he had sold 4 acre 12 guntas as per registered Sale Deeds produced at Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C' by retaining 20 guntas for himself. He argued that the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner had committed an error in considering the father of petitioners 1 to 5 viz., Subbaiah had sold entire extent of land and the said finding recorded by the respondent No.2 requires interference in this writ petition.. 7. By referring to the proceedings in Original No.4756 of 2005 (Annexure-E), learned counsel appearing for petitioners argued that the respondents 5 to 9, being - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25955 WP NO.58884 OF 2015 defendants in the said suit, adverted that the defendants have acquired the title by adverse possession and therefore, impugned order passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner requires interference by this Court. 8. Per contra, Sri. Raghavendra S. Srivatsa, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 9 did not dispute about the registered Sale deeds referred to at Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C', however, contended that the entire extent of land was sold in favour of the father of the respondents 5 to 9 and his brother Munishamappa. Learned Senior Counsel also refers to the RTC Extracts produced at Annexure-R3 series and contended that, no interference be called for in this writ petition. 9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 9 further contended that, before effecting Khata in favour of respondents 5 to 9, the respondent No.4-Tahsildar had called for objections relating to the transfer of Khata and thereafter, Khata has been made as per Annexure-R5. By referring to the Original Suit No.4756 of 2005, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 9 submitted that the said suit is for partition and separate possession and the petitioners herein - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25955 WP NO.58884 OF 2015 have nothing to do with the rights of the parties therein. Learned Senior Counsel also contended that the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, after considering the material on record, had rightly passed an impugned order taking into consideration the boundaries mentioned in the Sale Deeds referred to above and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 10. Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2. 11. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the father of petitioners 1 to 5 viz., Subbaiah was the owner in possession of the land to an extent of 4 acre 32 guntas in Survey No.4 of Thurbarahalli Village, Benglauru East Taluk. It is also not in dispute that the father of petitioners 1 to 5 had executed the registered Sale Deeds as per Annexures 'A', 'B' and 'C' in favour of Hanumanthappa, father of respondents 5 to 9 and also in favour of the brother of Hanumanthappa viz., Munishamappa. The controversy in this writ petition is with - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25955 WP NO.58884 OF 2015 regard to 20 guntas, as claimed by the petitioners after deducting 4 acre 12 guntas as per the registered Sale Deeds referred to above. In this regard, on careful examination of the writ papers, the same would indicate that this court, by order dated 07th April, 2015 (Annexure-L), in Writ Petition No.13371-75 of 2014, remanded the matter to the respondent No.3 to reconsider the case of the parties afresh. On perusal of the finding recorded by the No.3-Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-M would indicate that the respondent No.3 had committed an error in holding that the petitioners herein having right, title and interest over the land in question and as such, decided the title of the parties in respect of the 20 guntas of the land. In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of SMT. JAYAMMA AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF KARNATKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 2020 KAR 1449, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between the parties and same is in the domain of the competent Civil Court. The said aspect of the matter was rightly concluded by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order dated 01st December, 2015 (Annexure-N) by setting aside order passed by the - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25955 WP NO.58884 OF 2015 respondent No.3 and as such, relegated the petitioners herein to establish their right before the competent Civil Court in a manner known to law. Hence, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 01st December, 2015 (Annexure-N) passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45