- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51982 WP No. 9866 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 9866 OF 2020 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. 2. SRI KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE. HULLURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS SRI. SUBBARAYAPPA S/O LATE HULLURAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT: CHEEMANDAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUKA, BANGALORE RURAL DIST, PIN: 562 114 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.T. JAGAN MOHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT NARAYANAMMA W/O. LATE. MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS 2. SRI. VENKATESH S/O. LATE. VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51982 WP No. 9866 of 2020 3. SRI. V NARAYAN S/O.LATE. VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA D/O.LATE. VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 5. SMT. ANUSUYAMMA D/O.LATE. VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 6. SMT MANJULA D/O.LATE. VENKATAGIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS SL.NO.1 TO 6 RESIDING AT CHEEMANDAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUKA, BANGALORE RURAL DIST-562 114 AND ALSO RESIDING AT RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, KOWDENAHALLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, DOORVANI NAGAR POST, BANGALORE-560 016. 7. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST, PIN: 562 114 8. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DVN, DODDABALLAPURA-561 203 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51982 WP No. 9866 of 2020 9. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DIST, BANGALORE-560 009 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HIMA KIRANA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRAKASH T HEBBAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1 -R6, SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S, AGA FOR R7 & R8) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CONTENDING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN REVISION PETITION NO.114/2018-19 VIDE ANEXURE-L THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 14.07.2017 passed in R.A.(H)100/2016-17 by respondent No.8-the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure - 'K' and the order dated 29.12.2018 passed in R.P.No.114/2017 by respondent No.9-the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural as per Annexure - 'M'. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51982 WP No. 9866 of 2020 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners' father late Hullurappa was in possession and enjoyment of the property bearing Sy.No.10 measuring 4 acres 20 guntas of Cheemadahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Hosakote Taluk (for brevity, 'subject land') ever since from the year 1942-43 and the said land was granted to Hullurappa by Mysuru Maharaja. Ever since, all the revenue entries of the subject land mutated in the name of Hullurappa as per M.R.No.5/2008-09 and he was in continuous possession of the subject land. 3. Things stood thus, respondent Nos.1 to 6 have filed the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner for change of khatha and mutation entries in respect of 4 acres in the subject land on the ground that the same was inam land and in the year 1962 the said land was granted in favour of predecessor of respondent Nos.1 to 6 vide Inam Abolition Proceedings No.4635/1961-62. The Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order at Annexure-K directing the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry after issuing notice to both the parties and pass the order in accordance with law in respect of mutation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51982 WP No. 9866 of 2020 entries of the subject land. The said order has been challenged by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order at Annexure-M by rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioners and directed the Tahsildar to mutate the name of respondent Nos.1 to 6 in respect of subject land. The challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 4. Heard, the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for contesting respondent Nos.1 to 6 so also the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.7 and 8. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that ever since from the year 1942-43 the petitioners' father Hullurappa was in possession and cultivation of the subject land. After his demise, the petitioners being his legal heirs were in continuous possession of the subject land and all the revenue entries mutated in their name. 6. He further contended that, the Inam Abolition Proceeding No.4635/1961-62 was conducted behind the back of the petitioners without notifying them and they were in actual - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51982 WP No. 9866 of 2020 possession of the subject land and revenue records stood in their name. He also contended that the Assistant Commissioner has rightly passed an order directing the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry in respect of possession and other aspect of the subject land and to pass an order to mutate the revenue entries of the subject land. However, the Deputy Commissioner without considering the said aspect dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioners and ordered to mutate the revenue entries in the name of respondent Nos.1 to 6 without holding any such enquiry. As such, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable under law. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 6 submits that the petitioners have failed to produce any such grant order made in their favour in the year 1942-43. However, respondent Nos.1 to 6 have placed the grant order dated 06.03.1962 under inam abolition proceedings. According to the learned counsel, respondent Nos.1 to 6 are in possession and cultivation of the subject land. As such, the Deputy Commissioner rightly passed the order by directing the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51982 WP No. 9866 of 2020 Tahsildar to mutate their name in the revenue entries. Hence, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 8. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the matter may be remitted to the Tahsidlar by affirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 9. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties so also the documents made available before this Court. 10. As could be gathered from records, the order of the Assistant Commissioner clearly depicts that the petitioners are claiming right on the subject land by virtue of grant made in favour of their father in the year 1942 by Mysuru Maharaja. They also placed certain revenue records which stood in their name before the Assistant Commissioner. However, respondent Nos.1 to 6 claims right over the subject land by virtue of order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Inam Abolition Proceeding No.4635/1961-62. Further, there is no mention or reference is forthcoming in the impugned order that the petitioners were notified before passing an order in the Inam Abolition Proceeding and there is no such documents - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51982 WP No. 9866 of 2020 placed by either party about the possession of the subject land. In such circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner has rightly passed the order by directing the Tahsildar to pass appropriate order in respect of the revenue entries and possession of subject land after conducting an enquiry as per provision of Sections 128 and 129 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. However, the Deputy Commissioner without assigning any proper reason passed the impugned order by directing the Tahsidlar to mutate the name of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 in the revenue records without conducting any such enquiry in a cryptic order. 11. In such circumstance, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner requires interference by this Court. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 29.12.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.114/2017 as per Annexure- M is hereby quashed. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51982 WP No. 9866 of 2020 iii. The order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the Assistant commissioner as per Annexure-K is affirmed. Consequently, as directed by the Assistant Commissioner, the Tahsildar, Hosakote Taluk is directed to conduct an enquiry in respect of possession and title by examining the documents and thereafter to pass an order in respect of the mutation entries of the subject land in accordance with law. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26