- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46116-DB WA No. 586 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH 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. 586 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. HANUMANTHA RAJU L S/O LATE LAKSHMINARASIMHAIAH DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 204 …APPELLANT (BY SRI HANUMANTHA RAJU L., APPELLANT-PARTY IN PERSON) AND: 1. A.P.N MURTHY S/O LATE A. PUTTABYLAIAH #55/1, NEW POST OFFICE ROAD NEAR SOMESHWARA COMMUNITY HALL SOMESHWARA EXTENSION DODDABALLAPURA 2. A.P. MANJUNATH S/O LATE A. PUTTABYALAIAH HEBBALA BENGALURU - 560 065 3. MANJUNATH A.S. ASST. DIRECTOR OF Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46116-DB WA No. 586 of 2024 LAND RECORDS DODDABALLAPURA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A.P.N MURTHY, R-1 - PARTY IN PERSON, SRI A.P. MANJUNATH, R-2 - PARTY IN PERSON [ABSENT] SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-3) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20/03/2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1357/2023 AND TO CONTINUE DOCUMENT-2 MR H21/2022-23 & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR 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 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant, appearing in-person, has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.1357/2023 (KLR-RES). The said petition was preferred by respondent Nos.1 and 2 impugning an order dated 21.02.2022 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District in RP.No.190/2019. The appellant had filed the said revision petition under Section 50 of the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46116-DB WA No. 586 of 2024 Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 impugning an order dated 07.01.2014 passed in RA.31/2012-13, whereby the appellant's petition challenging the mutation entry being M.R.14/2000-01, in respect of lands measuring 02 acres and 28 guntas falling in Sy.No.12, situated at Akkathammanahalli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural District was rejected. The appellant is aggrieved by the said entry in sofar as it excluded his name in respect of the said property. 2. It is material to note that the appellant had filed the said revision petition pursuant to the liberty granted by the learned Single Judge of this Court in terms of the order dated 20.09.2019 in W.P.No.43003/2018 (KLR-RES). The learned Single Judge had noted in his order that the appellant was claiming mutation entry on the strength of the Sale Deed dated 03.06.1980 which reflects that the said property was purchased by the appellant and his brother - A. Puttabylaiah (respondent No.1 in the said writ petition). This Court had also observed that if the same was established, the revenue authorities were required to act upon the said deed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46116-DB WA No. 586 of 2024 3. There is no dispute that the appellant and respondents are claiming title in respect of the subject property pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 03.06.1980. The same indicates that the subject property was purchased in the joint names of A. Puttabylaiah and Hanumantha Raju L, the sons of Lakshminarasimhaiah. Thus, the concerned revenue authorities were required to act and make entries as reflected in the sale deed. 4. Apparently, the appellant had preferred the suit for declaration being O.S.No.51/1994, which came to be dismissed on account of failure on the part of the appellant to furnish a copy of the plaint to the defendant. The appellant filed a Miscellaneous petition, being Misc.P.No.26/2014 seeking to recall the said order. However, the same was also dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. It appears that since the appellant did not succeed in the suit, an adverse inference was drawn against his right, title and interest over the subject property. However, there is no order of the Civil Court adjudicating the title of the subject property in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 2 (being the sons of A. Puttabylaiah). Notwithstanding that the appellant did not succeed in the suit for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46116-DB WA No. 586 of 2024 declaration filed by him, there is no order adjudicating any controversy regarding the title of the subject property. 5. The learned Single Judge had rightly referred to the decision of the full bench of this Court in Smt. Jayamma v. State of Karnataka: ILR 2020 KAR 1449 and set out the principle that revenue authorities cannot decide disputed questions of title and the entries are required to be made on the basis of documents on record. In the present case, in the absence of any adjudication of disputes regarding the title of the subject property, the entries are required to be made on the basis of the sale deed dated 03.06.1980. 6. As noted above, the said sale deed conveyed the subject property in joint names of the appellant and Sri A. Puttabylaiah. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The prayer made in the writ petition is rejected. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE SD, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57