- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52702 WP No. 38460 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 38460 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT PILLAMMA W/O LATE B MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.735, 3RD CROSS, 23RD WARD, CHAMARAJPET, CHICKBALLAPURA TOWN, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN:562 101 2(A) SRI LAKSHMAIAH S/O LATE B MUNISHAMAPPA, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS, SMT ANITHA, W/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 3(B) KUM NANDINI L D/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, 4(C) KUM KUSUMA L D/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN PETITONER NO.2 (A) PETITIONERS 2(A) TO (C) ARE RESIDING Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52702 WP No. 38460 of 2016 AT NO.735, 3RD CROSS, 23RD WARD, CHAMARAJPET, CHICKBALLAPURA TOWN, CHICKBALLAPURA TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN:562 101 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N SONNE GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.N. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. PRABHU K.M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, SIR M VISVESWARAYA TOWER, PHODIUM BLOCK, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, PIN:561 203 4. THE TAHSILDAR DEVENAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN:562 110 5. RAJANNA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GOBBARAGUNTE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52702 WP No. 38460 of 2016 PIN:562 164 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4, SRI. S.N. KRISHNA MURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, ENDING WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.26.4.2016 PASSED IN THE R.P.NO.72/2009-10 BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEX-Q. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 08.12.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CAV ORDER 1. The petitioners in this writ petition have sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.08.2009 passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-'M' and order dated 26.04.2016 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-'Q'. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, one Chikkamunishamappa (grand father of the respondent No.5) is the original owner of land bearing Sy.No.60/1, measuring an extent of 1 acre 17 guntas situated at Avathi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk (for brevity, "Subject land"). The said - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52702 WP No. 38460 of 2016 Chikkamunishamappa had two sons namely Muneppa @ Muniyappa (father of the respondent No.5) and Narayanappa. After demise of their father Chikkamunishamappa, the said Muneppa @ Muniyappa and Narayanappa have partitioned their family properties along with the subject land. In the said partition, subject land had fallen to the share of Muniyappa. 3. Thereafter, in the year 1965, Muniyappa sold the subject land in favour of one B. Munishamappa (father of petitioner Nos.1 and 2) by virtue of Sale Deed dated 01.11.1965 and thereby the mutation was effected in M.R. No. 10/1996-97 and katha was transferred in the name of B.Munishamappa. As such, he along with his family members were in possession and enjoyment of the subject land. Further, his name was reflected in RTC till 2001-02. 4. Subsequently, the Government has newly introduced computerized RTC and Mutations etc. In the computerized RTC of the subject land, the name of B.Munishamappa has wrongly been mentioned as Muneppa @ Muniyappa i.e. the father respondent No.5. As such, the petitioners have filed an application to correct the name in the RTC extracts. Thereafter, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52702 WP No. 38460 of 2016 the Assistant Commissioner has passed order dated 10.04.2007 and directed the Tahsildar to show the name of B.Munishamappa. On the basis of the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the Tahsildar has rectified the name in the RTC extract vide M.R.No.130/2006-07. In the meantime, the respondent No.5 filed a original suit in O.S No.763/2007 against the petitioners for declaration and injunction and challenged the M.R.No.130/2006-07 before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.(Dev).No.110/2007-08. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.5 and directed the Tahsildar to mutate the revenue entries in the name of respondent No.5 vide order dated 28.08.2009. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners had approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing a Revision Petition. However, the Deputy Commissioner also dismissed the same by affirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 5. Heard Sri N. Sonne Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4, Sri N. Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for respondent No.5. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52702 WP No. 38460 of 2016 6. The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order without any notice to the petitioners and without conducting any enquiry and by not providing any opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their case. 7. He further contended that, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have erred in not noticing that the husband of petitioner No.1 B.Munishamappa had purchased the subject land from respondent No.5's father i.e., Muniyappa under registered Sale Deed dated 01.11.1965 and the mutation was effected in the name of B. Munishamappa in M.R.No.10/1996-97. Subsequently, due to the technical glitch, the name of Muniyappa was entered in the computerised RTC. By taking advantage of the same, respondent No.5 had raised a dispute before the Assistant Commissioner claiming right over the subject land. 8. Further, respondent No.5 has also filed a suit initially in O.S.No.763/2007 for declaration by way of adverse possession. After recording evidence of respondent No.5, at the stage of further cross-examination of PW1, respondent No.5 has filed an - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52702 WP No. 38460 of 2016 application under Order XXIII Rule 1 (3) of C.P.C. seeking permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to institute a fresh suit and subsequently, in the year 2018, respondent No.5 has filed one more suit in O.S.No.118/2018 seeking similar relief, which clearly reveals that, respondent No.5 is claiming right over the subject land with an ulterior motive. In such circumstance, the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner ought to have rejected the claim of respondent No.5. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.5 submits that the subject land belongs to grandfather of respondent No.5 i.e., Chikkamunishamappa and for family necessities, his father Muniyappa had executed a nominal Sale Deed dated 01.11.1965 in favour of B. Munishamappa in respect of subject land, however, the subject land was continued to be in possession and enjoyment of respondent No.5 and even the revenue records continued in the name of his father - Muniyappa. Nonetheless, the petitioners by misrepresentation had got the revenue records mutated in their name. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52702 WP No. 38460 of 2016 10. He also submits that the contention of the petitioners that no notice was served to them before passing the impugned order by the Assistant Commissioner is incorrect. He contended that there was no partition in the year 1965 and that though the grandfather of respondent No.5 was alive, it has been shown in the Sale Deed dated 01.11.1965 as late Chikkamunishamappa. As such, execution of Sale Deed in the year 1965 cannot be believed. Further, since there was a civil dispute pending between the parties in respect of the subject land, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rightly passed the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 11. Learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 4 supports the impugned order and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 12. As could be gathered from records, B. Munishamappa had purchased the subject land in the year 1965 from Muniyappa s/o Chikkamunishamappa i.e. father of respondent No.5 vide absolute Sale Deed dated 01.11.1965. In pursuance of the Sale Deed, the revenue records were mutated in the name of B. Munishamappa in MR.No.10/96-97 and the RTC entries also - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52702 WP No. 38460 of 2016 reflected till the year 2001-02. Later in the year 2006-07 when the computerized RTC was introduced, the name of Muniyappa i.e. vendor of the B. Munishamappa was entered in MR.10/96- 97 under mistaken notion. Later, the petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner for rectification of the name in the RTC. The same was allowed and affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.5 that in the Sale Deed of the year 1965, the name of respondent No.5's grandfather i.e., Chikkamunishamappa was shown as dead, though he died in the year 1971 and as such, the Sale Deed cannot be believed. The said contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason, since respondent No.5 did not question the Sale Deed dated 01.11.1965 till the year 2007. Nevertheless, though he filed a suit in the year 2007, he withdrew the same. 13. On the other hand, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No.5 - Rajanna has filed R.A.(Dev)No.110/2007-08 before the Assistant Commissioner against dead person i.e., B. Munishamappa. After registering the case, the Assistant Commissioner has - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52702 WP No. 38460 of 2016 issued a notice to said B. Munishamappa through RPAD and the same was returned with a shara "Insufficient Address". Subsequently, on 13.06.2008, the counsel appearing for respondent No.5 herein has reported that B. Munishamappa was dead. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner has directed respondent No.5 herein to file an application to bring the legal representatives of B.Munishamappa on record by 30.08.2008. However, respondent No.5 has failed to file the application and therefore, finally, the Assistant Commissioner has passed an impugned order dated 28.08.2009 against a dead person in R.A.(DEV).No. 110/2007-08. But in the cause title of the said order, it clearly shows that B. Munishamappa was dead and is represented by his legal heirs namely Pillamma and Lakshmaiah and address is shown as 'Chamarajpet, Bengaluru- 560 018'. The petitioners are the residents of Chamarajpet in Chikkaballapura Town, Chikkaballapura Taluk and District. Thus, it is obvious the petitioners would not have received notice from the Assistant Commissioner and it is a clear violation of principles of natural justice. In the appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has not appreciated these aspects in proper perspective. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52702 WP No. 38460 of 2016 14. It is also contended by the learned counsel for respondent No.5 that a civil suit filed by respondent No.5 is pending in O.S.No.118/2018 seeking a declaration that the Sale Deed executed by his father Muniyappa in favour of B.Munishamappa is illegal and is not binding on him. Admittedly, the earlier suit filed in O.S.No.763/2007 by respondent No.5 was withdrawn by him which was filed seeking similar relief and the present suit is instituted after lapse of five decades from the date of Sale Deed. In such circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have erred in directing the Tahsildar to mutate the name of respondent No.5 in the revenue records, despite petitioners placing the registered Sale Deed and the mutation entries entered in their name till the year 2001-02. Hence, interference is required with the impugned order. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 28.08.2009 passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-'M' and order - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:52702 WP No. 38460 of 2016 dated 26.04.2016 passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-'Q' are hereby quashed. iii. The revenue entries shall restore in the name of the petitioners. iv. The parties are at liberty to agitate their grievance before the Civil Court in the pending suit. v. The parties shall maintain status-quo in respect of possession of the subject land till the disposal of the pending suit. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42