- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51765 WP No. 13114 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 13114 OF 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHANDRAPPA S/O GIRIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/O HOUSE LIST NO.86 R/AT HIRANDAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK. 2. SMT. MUNIYAMMA W/O CHINTHALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS R/AT HIRANDAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N S BHAT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51765 WP No. 13114 of 2019 KRISHNARAJAPURA, BENGALURU. 4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK. 5. SRI CHIKKAVEERA NAGAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs., 5(a) NARAYANAMMA W/O CHIKKAVEERA NAGAPPA 5(b) SIDDAPPA S/O CHIKKAVEERA NAGAPPA 5(c) NAGENDRA S/O CHIKKAVEERA NAGAPPA 5(d) SRIKANTH S/O CHIKKAVEERA NAGAPPA 5(e) MUNIRAJ S/O CHIKKAVEERA NAGAPPA ALL ARE R/AT BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K S, AGA FOR R1-R4; SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C, ADVOCATE FOR LRs OF R5 ie., R5(a-e)) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - R-1 IN REVISION PETITION 75/2015-16 AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2015 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51765 WP No. 13114 of 2019 IN RA (BE) 160/2010-11 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-R2 AS PER ANENXURE-F AND ETC., THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 05.12.2025 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 are seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru in Revision Petition No.75/2015-16 vide Annexure-J and consequently confirm the order dated 04.04.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru as per Annexure-F and to restore mutation in MR.No.35/2008-2009 vide Annexure-E in favour of the petitioners in respect of Sy.No.110, measuring 20 guntas situated at Hirandahalli village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk (for brevity, "subject land"). 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that one Chinthalappa i.e. the husband of petitioner No.2 and father (foster) of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51765 WP No. 13114 of 2019 petitioner No.1 has purchased the subject land from one H.V.Seshagiri under a registered Sale Deed dated 23.11.1978 and the khatha was transferred in his name and Pahani was entered vide MR No.1/1983-84. 3. After the demise of said Chinthalappa on 01.09.2007, the petitioners, being his foster son and wife respectively, have succeeded to the subject land and they made an application before respondent No.4 - the Deputy Tahsildar to mutate their name in the revenue record in respect of subject land. After enquiry, the Deputy Tahsildar has passed an order dated 01.09.2008 in RRT (BE) CR 174/2008-09 and restored MR.No.1/1983-84. 4. Later, the petitioners have filed an application before respondent No.3 - Tahsildar to transfer the khatha of the subject land in their names by way of inheritance and after an enquiry, the Tahsildar has transferred the khatha in their names vide Pouthi Khatha in MR No.35/2008-09. 5. After lapse of two years, respondent No.5 - Chikkaveera Nagappa has preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 - - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51765 WP No. 13114 of 2019 Assistant Commissioner, challenging the mutation entry in MR No.35/2008-09 in respect of the subject land. However, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal vide order dated 04.04.2015. Against the said order, respondent No.5 preferred a revision petition before respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the revision petition by setting aside the order dated 04.04.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 15.02.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. Heard Sri N.S. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4, Sri Chandrashekar. C., learned counsel for respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(e). 7. The primary contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that, after the death of original owner of the subject land - Chinthalappa, petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 being his foster son and wife respectively inherited the property and the mutation and khatha were entered in their name. However, respondent No.5, being the brother of late - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51765 WP No. 13114 of 2019 Chinthalappa, had claimed right over the subject land based on the mutation in MR.No.17/1998-99 dated 15.03.1999. The said mutation entry effected only based on an application filed by respondent No.5 without having any right or interest over the subject land. He further contended that, petitioner No.1 had claimed right on the subject land being the foster son of late Chinthalappa and also by virtue unregistered Gift Deed dated 06.11.2010 and an affidavit dated 10.11.2008 executed by petitioner No.2. In such circumstance, the Assistant Commissioner has rightly changed the khatha in the name of petitioners, whereas the Deputy Commissioner has erred in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(e) contended that, petitioner No.1 is totally a stranger to the family of late Chinthalappa and petitioner No.2 - Muniyamma. According to him, the petitioner No.1 is not a foster son of late Chinthalappa and Muniyamma and the said aspect was not proved before the Competent Court. Additionally, the alleged Gift Deed and the affidavit relied on by petitioner No.1 are concocted documents in order to grab the subject land. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51765 WP No. 13114 of 2019 According to the learned counsel, during the pendency of the dispute before the Deputy Commissioner, petitioner No.2 - Muniyamma has filed an affidavit dated 25.01.2019 stating that petitioner No.1 was not a foster son and he produced a false family tree before the authority and fraudulently got changed the khatha with respect to subject land. In such circumstance, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal. 9. Learned AGA appearing for respondents 1 to 4 supports the impugned order and alternatively, submits that the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration. 10. As could be gathered from records, after the death of Chinthalappa, the original owner of the subject land, petitioner No.2 his wife and petitioner No.1 who claims to be his foster son have filed an application before the Tahsildar for change of khatha and accordingly, the revenue record was mutated in their name and khatha was also transferred in their name jointly. 11. However, later in the year 1998-1999, respondent No.5 made an application before the Tahsildar stating that he is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51765 WP No. 13114 of 2019 brother of late Chinthalappa and since late Chinthalappa died issueless, he being the Class-II heir of late Chinthalappa was entitled of inheritance of the subject land. Based on the said application, the mutation has been changed by the Deputy Tahsildar in his name. The contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.5(a) to 5(e) is that, petitioner No.1 is not a foster son of late Chinthalappa and the application filed by him before the Tahsildar that he is the only son of late Chinthalappa is totally false and the alleged Gift Deed and declaration are also fabricated and since the same are unregistered documents and no legal sanctity could be attached to them and since petitioner No.2 had also filed an affidavit before the Deputy Commissioner stating that petitioner No.1 is not the foster son of late Chinthalappa and her, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No.5. This contention of the respondent No.5(a) to 5(e) does not hold much water for the simple reason that the mutation entered in the name of respondent No.5 in MR No.17/1998-99 was only based on his application without producing any supporting document to establish his right by way of Class-II inheritance and the affidavit of petitioner No.2 relied on by respondent - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51765 WP No. 13114 of 2019 Nos.5(a) to 5(e) was alleged to have been filed by respondent No.5 after the case was posted for judgment by the Deputy Commissioner. In such circumstance, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar to conduct a detailed enquiry in respect of legal right of both the parties with respect to subject land by extending opportunity to both the parties. Accordingly I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned order dated 15.02.2019 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru in R.P No.75/2015-16 at Annexure-'A' and also the order dated 04.04.2015 passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru at Annexure-'F' are hereby quashed. iii. The matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar for reconsideration by extending opportunity to both the parties to put forth their case along with the relevant documents. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51765 WP No. 13114 of 2019 iv. Till such time, mutation and khatha of the subject land shall be continued in the name of petitioner No.1 as well as respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(e). v. The parties are directed to maintain status- quo in respect of possession of subject land, till the matter is decided afresh by the Tahsildar. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42