- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27700 WP No. 8439 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 8439 OF 2020 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. M.G. MANJUNATH s/o LATE M.B. GURULINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT MAYAGANAHALLI POST RAMANGARA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 128. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANGARA - 562 128. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, MINI VIDHNA SOUDHA, RAMANGARA TALUK - 562 128, RAMANGARA DISTRICT. 3. THE TAHSILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, RAMANAGARA TALUK - 562 128, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, DARAPURA CIRCLE, KASABA HOBLI, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27700 WP No. 8439 of 2020 RAMANAGARA TALUK - 562 128, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 5. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA WIFE OF SIDHAPPA D/O LATE GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT KEMPANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 128. 6. SRI. KENCHAYYA SON OF LATE GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT DARAPURA VILLAGE, MAYAGANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK - 562 128, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 7. SMT. MANGAMMA WIFE MUDALAGIRIYAPPA S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/AT GOPAHALLI VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 128. 8. SRI. VENKATAACHALAYYA, S/O LATE GIRYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT DARALPURA VILLAGE, MAYAGANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANGARA TALUK - 562 128, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. 9. SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF LAKSHMANA D/O LATE GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27700 WP No. 8439 of 2020 R/AT KENJIGARAHALLI VILLAGE MAYAGANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 128. 10. SRI. NAGARAJAYYA S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT DARAPURA VILLAGE MAYAGANAHALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK - 562 128, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SHEKAR L.S, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R10) ------- THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2.1.2020 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANGARA DISTRICT IN REVISION PETITION NO.21/2019-20 (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A) AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 6.1.2018 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARAM SUB-DIVISION IN R.A.NO.610/2014-15 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27700 WP No. 8439 of 2020 ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 02.01.2020 in R.P.No.21/2019-20 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent no.1 and the order dated 06.01.2018 (Annexure-B) passed by respondent no.2. 3. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and, on perusal of the writ papers, it is noticed that, respondents no.5 to 10 have approached the respondent no.3 seeking change of katha (IHC 37/1998-99) into their names based on the registered Sale Deed dated 01.07.1965 (Annexure-R1) to the writ petition and thereafter, filed an appeal before respondent no.2, which was partly allowed by respondent no.2 by remanding the matter to respondent no.3, for consideration of the case of the parties afresh. The said order of remand made by respondent no.2, has been challenged by the petitioner herein. Respondent no.1 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and confirmed the order of respondent no.2. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27700 WP No. 8439 of 2020 4. After careful consideration of the order passed by respondent no.3, it would indicate that the change of katha has been made by respondent no.3 in favour of the petitioner and the same has been challenged by the private respondents in R.A.No.610/2014-15 (Annexure-B) wherein, respondent no.2 has remanded the matter to respondent no.3 for fresh consideration. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner herein before respondent no.1 in Revision Petition No.21/2019-20 and respondent no.1 vide order dated 02.01.2020 (Annexure-A) confirmed the order passed by respondent no.2. 5. However, taking into consideration the fact that, mutation has been sought to be changed based on the registered Sale Deed dated 01.07.1965 (Annexure-R1), which is nearly 55 years prior to the present mutation on record, I am of the view that, there is a delay of 55 years in seeking for change of katha before the revenue authorities and that apart, the revenue authorities cannot interfere with the title of the land in question is concerned. Hence, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27700 WP No. 8439 of 2020 the private respondents have to establish their rights in respect of the land in question based on the registered Sale Deed dated 01.07.1965 wherein, by efflux of time, revenue entries cannot be sought to be changed after a lapse of nearly 55 years. 6. In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that, the writ petition deserves to be allowed as the respondents no.5 to 10 have to establish their right before the competent civil court based on the registered Sale Deed dated 01.07.1965. 7. In that view of the matter, the following order is passed : ORDER i) The writ petition is allowed; ii) The impugned orders passed by respondents no.1 and 2 are hereby quashed and the revenue entries, which stood prior to the alleged change of mutation, shall continue in the name of the petitioner herein till further proceedings that, may be concluded between the parties, based on the registered Sale Deed dated 01.07.1965. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE rs/CT: BHK