- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48164 WP No. 25150 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 25150 OF 2016 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: MR. GOVINDASWAMY SON OF LATE T PERUMAL SHETTY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS RESIDENT OF SANDANAPALAYAM VILLAGE RAMAPURA HOBLI KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT OCC:AGRICULTURIST PINCODE-571 440 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJARAMA S, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MR. GOVINDARAJU SON OF NOT KNOWN TO THIS PLAINTIFF AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS HUGYAM VILLAGE KUDALUR POST, KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARARAJANAGAR CHAMRAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLLEGAL, KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440 Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48164 WP No. 25150 of 2016 4. TAHASHILDAR KOLLEGAL, KOLLEGAL TALUK CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571 440 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R2-R4, VIDE ORDER DATED 28.08.2019 PETITION AGAINST R1 STANDS DISMISSED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.10.11.2014 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ALSO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DTD.30.10.2012 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-F. 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 petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 10.11.2014 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.38/2012-13 vide Annexure-'A' and also to quash the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.224/2009-10. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the land bearing Sy.No.590/1 measuring 1 acre 8 cents situated at Hugyan Village, Kollegal Taluk (for brevity, 'the subject land') - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48164 WP No. 25150 of 2016 was originally granted in favour of his father namely T. Perumal Shetty on 05.08.1973 as darkasth land. Subsequently, the petitioner and his father of were in possession and cultivation of the same. Accordingly, the khata was effected in the name of the petitioner. However, in the year 2009, respondent No.1 challenged the mutation entries in M.R.No.64/2004-05 before respondent No.3 and the same was allowed by respondent No.3 directing to keep the khata in the joint name of the petitioner and respondent No.1. Against the said order, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.No.38/2012-13. The Deputy Commissioner, after re-assessment of the entire facts and materials on record, respondent No.3 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner and confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 4. On careful perusal of the records, it could be gathered that, in the year 1973, the subject land was granted in the name of T. Perumal Shetty i.e., the father of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48164 WP No. 25150 of 2016 petitioner. Subsequently, though the petitioner was in possession and cultivation of the land, respondent No.1, claiming to be the son of T. Perumal Shetty through his second wife, has filed a case before the Assistant Commissioner to change the khata in respect of subject land. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner passed the order to keep the khata in the joint name of the petitioner and respondent No.1 by reserving liberty to the parties to approach the Civil Court in respect of relationship of both the parties with said T. Perumal Shetty. On appeal by the petitioner, the said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. 5. In view of the liberty reserved by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and moreover, the revenue authorities have no such power to resolve or to pass an order in respect of relationship between the parties, I am of the considered view that both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rightly directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. 6. In that view of the matter, I find no good grounds to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Assistant - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48164 WP No. 25150 of 2016 Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. Accordingly, reserving liberty as granted by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. It is made clear that, till such time, the name of the petitioner and respondent No.1 shall be kept jointly in the khata in respect of subject land. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30