- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10372-DB WA No. 1107 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1107 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. HUCAPPA S/O. LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT: KARAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK – 562 110. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 1.1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE HUCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 1.2. SRI. MANOHARA H S/O. LATE HUCHAPPA BOTH ARE R/AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10372-DB WA No. 1107 of 2024 DEVANAHALLI TALUK – 562 110. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. V PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. THE DY. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, KODIUM BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 001. 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DN DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, KODIUM BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 001. 4. THE TASILDAR DEVANAHALLI BENGALURU RURAL DIST, P.C. NO. 562 110. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10372-DB WA No. 1107 of 2024 5. THE DY. TASILDAR KUNDANA NADA KACHERI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DIST, P.C. NO. – 562 110. 6. SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O. MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 7. SRI. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 8. SRI. SHANKARAPPA S/O LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS SL.NO. 6-8 ARE RESIDING AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK PIN – 562 110. 9. SRI. M S SOMESH S/O. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT MADAPURA VILLAGE, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10372-DB WA No. 1107 of 2024 MYGANAHALLI POST, RAMNAGARA TALUK, RAMNAGARA DISTRICT PIN – 562 159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H R SHRIDHARAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R9; SRI. SUDEV HEGDE M N, AGA FOR R1-R5; R6, R7 & R8 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.3835/2014 DATED 19/06/2024 AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR IN WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10372-DB WA No. 1107 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH) 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the order of this Court dated 19.06.2024 passed in WP.No.3835/2014 (KLR-RES), wherein, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appeal. 2. The ranks of the parties in the writ Court will be considered as per their rankings, for convenience. Factual matrix of the case: 3. The petitioner is the son of Late Bachappa. The said Bachappa had purchased a land to an extent of 2 acres 1 gunta in Sy.No.7 and 8 of Karahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District from Chikkabyamma @ Byamma as per the registered sale deed dated 30.08.1962. Pursuant to the said sale deed, revenue records were changed in the name of the father of the petitioner. 4. It is further contended that one Mr.Muniraju made a representation stating that, on 16.01.1960, land bearing Sy.no.7 and 8 measuring 1 acre 5 guntas was purchased by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10372-DB WA No. 1107 of 2024 Kuppali Byamma wife of Nanjapa, resident of Karahalli Village from Ramanjinappa son of Sonnappa. The RTC in respect of Sy.no.7 would show the name of Ramanjinappa and Narasimhaiah son of Bachappa. The RTC in respect of Sy.no.8 in column No.9 also would indicate the same. The said Muniraju has sought for change of katha on account of death of his mother Byamma. On the basis of the said application, after conducting enquiry, the Deputy Tahsildar concluded that katha has to be changed in the name of Ramananjappa to Byamma. The Deputy Tahsildar has passed an order stating that the names of the vendor are not tallied each other, ordered to change the katha in favour of K.N.Muniraju by keeping the land measuring 2 acres 1 gunta in abeyance. 5. The appellant herein had approached Revenue Authorities and ultimately he had challenged the order of Assistant Commissioner before the Writ Court. 6. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached this Court. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge passed an order which - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10372-DB WA No. 1107 of 2024 is contrary to RRT No.31/2004-2005, wherein, the respondent No.4 passed an order stating that the property bearing Sy.no.7 situated at Karahalli measuring 1 acre 5 guntas out of which half of the said property i.e. 22 ½ guntas of land and in Sy.no.8 measuring 2 acres 37 guntas, half of which 1 acre 18 guntas totally measuring 2 acres 1 gunta may be continued in the name of Shankarappa son of Bachappa. The said order was passed on 31.03.2006. 8. It is further contended that Sy.nos.7 and 8 consisting of 4 acres 2 guntas, wherein Byamma had purchased the property from Ramanjinappa measuring 2 acres 1 gunta and 1 acre 5 guntas respectively. Further, it is contended that the said Byamma had sold the property in favour of Bachappa son of Huchappa measuring 2 acres 1 gunta on 30.08.1962. 9. It is further contended that the appellant herein and his ancestors had been in possession of the property continuously till the impugned order passed by the Deputy Tahsildar wherein he has passed an order to change the katha to one Narasimhaiah. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10372-DB WA No. 1107 of 2024 10. It is further contended that as the writ Court has not appreciated the documents properly, the order has to be set aside. 11. Inspite of service of notice to the respondent Nos.6, 7 and 8, they remained absent. 12. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 justified the order passed by learned Single Judge. 13. Having gone through the order of the writ Court and also perused the documents available on record, it is appropriate to mention here that, one Narasimhaiah claimed to be son of Byamma trying to establish his rights in respect of property bearing its Sy.nos.7 and 8 of Karahalli Village. He had filed an application before the Deputy Tahsildar changing the katha in the year 1994-1995. However, the ancestor of the present appellant had purchased the property from Chikka Byamma on 30.08.1962. The sale deed would indicate that property measures 1 acre 5 guntas in Sy.no.7 and 2 acres 37 guntas in Sy.no.8. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10372-DB WA No. 1107 of 2024 14. It is also noted here that pursuant to the said sale deed, revenue records were changed/mutation entries were made in favour of Bachappa. 15. Having considered the revenue records available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge requires re-appreciation and liable to be set aside. 16. In the light of the observation made above, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Appeal is allowed. ii. The order dated 18.12.2013 passed by the respondent No.2 in RP 131/2008-2009 and order passed by respondent No.3 in RA No.(D) 9/2006- 2007 dated 29.11.2008 are set aside. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE NM/UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24