- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB WA No. 48 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH 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. 48 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1A. SOWBHAGYA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS SRI RAVIKUMAR R, S/O K RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, 1B. RAMESH R. YADAV S/O LATE K. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT No.96/1, KAMADENU NILAYA, KURUBARAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 086 1C. SRI GOPALKRISHNA R S/O LATE K RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 1D. SRI MANJUNATH R S/O LATE K RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, APPELLANTS No.1A TO 1D ARE R/AT NO 251, 4TH CROSS, KURUBARAHALLI, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST, BENGALURU - 560 086 1E. SMT PREMILA R Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB WA No. 48 of 2024 D/O LATE K RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO 15, 25TH A MAIN, AGARA, HSR LAYOUT, 1ST SECTOR, BENGALURU - 560 102 …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SURESH P., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 110 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 562 130 3. THE TAHASILDAR NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALA - 562 123 4. REVENUE INSPECTOR SOMAPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 123 5. SMT. KEMPASIDDAMMA W/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO 237, 4TH CROSS, KURUBARAHALLI, KURUBARAHALLI POST, BENGALURU - 560 086 6. SMT PRAMEELA D/O LATE K RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB WA No. 48 of 2024 R/AT NO 251, 4TH CROSS, KURUBARAHALLI, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST, BENGALURU - 560 086 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., AGA FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL b) TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2023 PASSED IN WP No-9595/2020 (KLR-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HONBLE COURT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ABOVE MENTIONED WRIT PETITION MAY BE ALLOWED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY 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. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.1/2024, the same is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB WA No. 48 of 2024 2. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.9595/2020 (KLR-RES): NC:2023:KHC:41272. The appellants had filed the said writ petition, inter alia, impugning an order dated 01.06.2020 in R.P. No.185/2017 passed by respondent No.1 [Deputy Commissioner] as well as an order dated 27.11.2017 passed by respondent No.2 [Assistant Commissioner] in RA(N) No.25/2016-17. 3. The respondent No. 5, who is the daughter of late Shri Kemparamaiah, had preferred the said appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [the KLR Act] impugning orders of mutation in MR No.IHC 41/1985-86, IHC 3/98- 99 and MR No.1/2001-02 in respect of properties falling in Survey Nos.93, 94/2 and 94/7, situated at Agalakuppe Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk [the subject property]. She had challenged the mutation entries recorded in the name of late Shri Ramaswamy and his wife Sowbhagya. The subject property had fallen to the share of late Shri Siddaramaiah. Respondent No. 5 and late Shri Ramaswamy are both grand children of Shri - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB WA No. 48 of 2024 Siddaramaiah. The genealogical tree of Shri Siddaramaiah’s family is reproduced below: GENEALOGICAL TREE SIDDARAMAIAH (LATE) ____________________ 1)Kemparamaiah (Late) 2)Krishnappa (Late) Wife Wife Doddakrishnamma (Late) Ramakka (Late) Kempasiddamma ____________________ (only daughter) Ramaswamy(Late) Saroja(55 Years) Wife (Daughter) Sowbhagya (60 Years) 4. It was the appellants' case that after the demise of late Shri Siddaramaiah, his sons Kemparamaiah and Krishnappa had divided the subject properties. In terms of the partition effected by them, the properties in Survey No.93, measuring 6 acres 27 guntas; in Survey No.94/2 measuring 1 acre and 35 guntas and in Survey No. 94/7 measuring 2 acres and 36 guntas had fallen to the share of Kemparamaiah. Respondent No.5 claimed that she being the only surviving heir of Kemperamaiah, was entitled to succeed to his share. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB WA No. 48 of 2024 5. It was the appellants' case that Kemparamaiah and Krishnappa had entered into an oral arrangement/partition and late Shri Kemparamaiah had agreed to relinquish his entire rights in favour of Shri Krishnappa. The appellant claimed rights in respect of the subject properties as legal heirs of Shri Ramaswamy (son of Shri Krishanappa). The subject properties were mutated in the name of Shri Ramaswamy as the heir legatee of late Shri Krishanappa. 6. Respondent No.2 found that there was no evidence of any oral partition between Shri Kemparamaiah and his brother. Accordingly, the concerned authority concluded that the mutation entries in favour of the son of Shri Krishnappa were without any basis. The wife and daughter of Ramaswamy had filed a revision petition bearing Revision Petition No.185/2017 before the first respondent. However, the same was dismissed on the ground that they had not produced any document to show that Late Shri Kemparamaiah had released the lands in question in favour of Shri Krishnappa. The relevant extract to the said order is set out below. " This is a case where in the land in question belongs to one Siddaramaiah who secured right over the properties as per registered partition - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB WA No. 48 of 2024 dated 02-06-1946, vide document No. 2770/1945- 46. The said Siddaramaiah had two sons elder named Kemparamaiah and the younger named Krishnappa. The petitioner contends that long back there was a partition between Kamaramaiah and Krishnappa, where in the Kemparamaiah has released the above said properties in favour of Krishnappa. But the petitioner has not produced any (document to show that Kemparamaiah has released the lands in question to Krishnappa. It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that after the demise of Kemparamaiah, Krishnappa and his son Ramaswamy got the lands mutated in to their name vide IHC 41/1985-86, IHC 3/1998-99 and MR 01/2001-02. Further, after the demise of Krishnappa his son Ramaswamy succeeded to the lands in question. Admittedly the 3rd Respondent being the daughter of Kemparamaiah filed a Revenue appeal before the 1st respondent. The petitioner contends that the said appeal has been filed by the 3rd respondent after a lapse of 35 years claiming that the lands in question are fallen to the share of Kemparamaiah as per the partition deed dated 02.06.1946, and the 1st respondent has wrongly allowed the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in RA (N) 25/2016-17. xxxxxxx I have gone through the contentions put forth by both the parties. The petitioners are admitting that the land in question initially fallen to the share of Kemparamaiah and 3rd respondent is the daughter of said Kemparamaiah, but petitioners contend that the said Kemparamaiah had released the lands in question to the 1st petitioner Krishnappa - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB WA No. 48 of 2024 subsequently 1st petitioner's husband and father of the 2nd petitioner Ramaswamy had inherited the land in question. But the petitioners have not produced any document to show that the lands in question were allotted to Krishnappa by Kemparamaiah. This apart, the 1st petitioner Soubhagya has also filed a suit before the Senior Civil judge and JMFC, Nelamangala for the relief of declaration and injunction against the 3rd respondent with respect to the lands in question. The said suit is still pending for adjudication before the civil court. The petitioners are stating that the Krishnappa has secured right over the lands in question as per the oral partition from Kemparamaiah. Revenue authorities are not empowered to decide on the oral partition matters, such powers always vest with the civil courts. On the other hand, the 1st petitioner has already stepped into the civil court for the declaration of the title of the lands in question. When the facts stood so, I found no reason to allow the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner and the same is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I pass following order." 7. The appellants had preferred a writ petition which was dismissed in terms of the impugned order. There is no document evidencing that Shri Kemparamaiah had relinquished any part of the subject land in favour of Krishnappa. 8. In view of the above, the finding that the mutation entries in question had been effected without any basis cannot be faulted. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:44424-DB WA No. 48 of 2024 9. The appeal is unmerited and is, accordingly, dismissed. The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE YKL CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22