- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47712 WP No. 4765 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 4765 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT ALUMELAMMA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O LATE DALAPPA, 2. KEMPAHANUMAIAHA D., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O LATE DALAPPA, (IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT IS WRONGLY SHOWN AS KEMPARAJU) 3. ANJANA MURTHY D., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE DALAPPA, 4. SHIVANANDA D., AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O LATE DALAPPA, 5. DR G.Y NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, S/O LATE SMT POOJAMMA AND LATE YALAGAIAH , ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF RAILWAY, GOLLAHALY, KASABA HOBLI, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT -562 123. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIVEKANANDA T P.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47712 WP No. 4765 of 2024 AND: 1. ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL, ADMINISTRATIVE BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANNA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK--562 110. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, TALUK OFFICE BUILDING, DODDABALLAPLURA-561 203. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 3. TAHASILDAR NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - -562 123. 4. SRI NARASHIMAMURTHY S/O LATE S V GOPAL @ GOPALAIAHA, R/AT MUNNESHWARA KRUPA, M.V EXTENSION, FLOOR MILL ROAD, HOSAKOTE TALUK-562 114. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 5. SRI G NAGARAJU S/O LATE S V GOPAL @ GOPALAIAHA R/AT GOLLAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123. 6. SRI G. VARADARAJU S/O LATE S V GOPAL @ GOPALAIAHA R/AT GOLLAHALLI,KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 7. SMT BYLAMMA W/O LATE YALLAPPA, R/AT RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47712 WP No. 4765 of 2024 8. SMT UMA DEVI W/O LATE PRAKASH, R/AT RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 9. SMT. REKHA D/O LATE PRAKASH, R/AT RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 10. SMT. GEETHA D/O LATE PRAKASH, R/AT RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 11. SRI. DARSHAN S/O LATE PRAKASH, R/AT RAILWAY GOLLAHALLI, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK-562 123. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9, R10, R11 ARE SERVED; V/O DATED 07.07.2025 NOTICE TO R5 AND R6 ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) QUASH THE ORDER IN PROCEEDINGS NO. RA (NE) 75/2017-18 DATED 27/07/2018 PASSED BY THE R2 AT ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47712 WP No. 4765 of 2024 ORAL ORDER The present petition has been filed seeking for setting aside of the proceedings in R.A.No.75/2017-18, dated 27.07.2018 passed at Annexure-J by the respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner. 2. The legal representatives of late Sri.S.V. Gopal who are the respondents herein had approached the respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner calling in question correctness of the mutation M.R. No.6/2004-05 dated 10.10.2004. 3. M.R. No.6/2004-05 at Annexure-G was a mutation affected in the name of Dalappa, Dr. G.Y. Nagaraju and Yellappa for an extent of 1 acre and 35 guntas. This mutation, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits relates to the right to Poojamma. 4. It is submitted that by virtue of the re-grant order at Annexure-B dated 18.03.1985 an extent of 1 acre and 35 guntas in Sy. No.128 was re-granted to Poojamma wife of Yelagaiah and a similar extent in Sy.No.128, measuring 1 acre and 35 guntas was granted in the name of Yellamma wife of Channappa. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47712 WP No. 4765 of 2024 5. It is a case of the petitioners that their rights are limited to the to an extent of land of 1 acre and 35 guntas in Sy.No.128, granted to Poojamma. It is noticed that in terms of Annexure-J, the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner has set aside the mutation in M.R.No.6/2004-5 taking note of certain sale deeds stated to have been executed in favour of S.V. Gopal prior to the order of re-grant. It is the finding by the respondent No2-Assistant Commissioner that in light of the judgment of Lakshmanagowda Vs State of Karnataka1, the alienee from a service inam holder would get rights of the sale deed regularized upon re-grant to the service holder. The respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner noticing the sale deeds executed in favour of S.V Gopal prior to the order of re- grant has upheld the rights of S.V Gopal on the basis of the sale deed and recorded a finding that the petitioners herein were entitled for mutation entry only with respect to an extent of 1 acre and not 1 acre and 35 guntas. Such finding of the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of the order at Annexure-M. 1 (1981) 1 KLJ page 1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47712 WP No. 4765 of 2024 6. The petitioners contend that the order of re-grant has clarified at paragraph No.5 that an extent of land that was alienated and in possession of S.V Gopal was 2 acre 30 guntas and that further the said S.V Gopal was evicted from the land in his possession and which was directed to be taken over by the Government and distributed in terms of the order of re- grant dated 18.03.1985. 7. Accordingly, it is contented by learned counsel Sri.T.P. Vivekananda appearing for the petitioners that S.V Gopal was dispossessed and that land was distributed amongst the re- grantees by virtue of the order of re-grant. It further specifically asserted that the re-grant in favour of Poojamma wife of Yelagaiah of an extent of 1 acre and 35 guntas has remained in the family and no sale deed is executed so far and accordingly to hold that S.V Gopal is entitled to an extent of land from the share of Poojamma does not arise. 8. It is further specifically stated that the rights of S.V Gopal, if any, insofar as share of Yellamma is an aspect that the petitioners are not interested and there need not be any - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47712 WP No. 4765 of 2024 adjudication as regards to the right of Yellamma wife of Channappa. 9. The respondents though served have remained absent. 10. It is not controverted that the order of re-grant on 18.03.1985, has recorded finding at paragraph No.5 which reads as follows: ''… 5. Since the Talwari service inam land to an extent of 2- 30 was alienated by some of the hakdars and the same is in possession of one Sri. Gopal, he was evicted from the same as per this Court order of even No. dated 21.09.194 and the possession of the said land has been taken over to the Government. '' 11. It is clear that the extent of land alienated was an extent of 2 acre 30 guntas which was in possession of Sri S.V Gopal, from which he was evicted and such land has now been re-granted after eviction from S.V Gopal to Poojamma wife of Yelagaiah and Yellamma wife of Channappa. The Extent of re- grant in favour of Poojamma's branch was 1 acre and 35 guntas in Sy.No.128. 12. While, the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner refers to the sale deeds executed in favour of S.V Gopal, however it was necessary that if S.V Gopal were to be - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47712 WP No. 4765 of 2024 conferred with any rights, there ought to have been a finding recorded that the vendors of S.V Gopal were claiming through the re-grantees mentioned in the order at Annexure-B. The respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner has seriously erred in recording a finding that sale deeds executed prior to orders of re-grant would enure to the benefit of S.V Gopal insofar as the right of an alienee from a service inam holder would stand confirmed only if the re-grantee was conferred with a re-grant. If that were to be so, the right of the re-grantee must be linked to the right of their vendor who should have been a re-grantee. In the absence of the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner recording a finding that the vendors of S.V Gopal were the re- grantees in terms of the order in Annexure-B, it would not have been appropriate for the Assistant Commissioner to have conferred rights on S.V Gopal by simply observing that the re- grantees are entitled to rights in terms of the judgment of this Court in Lakshmanagowda Vs State of Karnataka 2, case. 13. This Order of the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner has also been affirmed by the Deputy 2 (1981) 1 KLJ page 1 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47712 WP No. 4765 of 2024 Commissioner without recording a finding as to the right of the vendors of S.V Gopal. 14. The assertion of the petitioners that Poojamma has not sold any property and the property of the re-grantee Poojamma is with the family is a factual aspect which is not controverted by the other side. 15. As rightly contented by learned counsel for the petitioners, if at all S.V Gopal is to claim rights, it may be in the branch of Yellamma wife of Channappa, which however is not an aspect for adjudication in the present case. In the absence of the sale deeds executed in favour of S.V Gopal being traced to the branch of Yallamma, the question of altering the mutation in M.R.No.6/2004-05, standing in the name of Poojamma's family does not arise. 16. It is also be noticed that the revenue entries cannot confer title nor the revenue authorities could adjudicate. 17. In the absence of any demonstration of rights of S.V Gopal through their vendors and in the absence of any finding that Poojamma had sold the property, S.V. Gopal cannot be - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47712 WP No. 4765 of 2024 conferred with rights by way of proceedings relating to mutation. Accordingly, the order of Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are set aside and M.R.No.6/2004-05 stands affirmed. 18. It is also to be noticed that the Order at Annexure-P, which has made certain adverse observations regarding S.V Gopal, remain unchallenged till date. 19. The consequentially the alteration of mutation in M.R.No.6/2004-05 pursuant to the order of the Assistant Commissioner as reflected in Annexure-K is set aside and M.R.No.6/2004-05 stands restored. With the above observation, petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22