- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27173 WP NO.24320 OF 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.24320 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE HUCHHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS. 2. H. NAGARAJU S/O LATE HUCHHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 3. B.H. SIDDAPPA S/O LATE HUCHHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. 4. B.H. SHIVANNA S/O LATE HUCHHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT: GANIGARA BEEDI, BANNUR TOWN, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.J. ALVA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHSILDAR T. NARASIPURA TALUK, T. NARASIPURA, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 101. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27173 WP NO.24320 OF 2022 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 001. 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR BANNUR HOBLI, BANNUR, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 101. 5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT BANNUR GRAMATHANA VILLAGE, BANNUR TOWN, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 101. 6. ARASE GOWDA S/O LATE SIDDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS. 7. PRAKASH M. S/O LATE MAYI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 ARE R/AT M.M. ROAD, BANNUR TOWN, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 101. 8. SMT. MEENAKSHI W/O LATE NAGARAJ, D/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, GANIGARA BEEDI, BANNUR TOWN, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 101. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27173 WP NO.24320 OF 2022 9. SIDDE GOWDA S/O LATE SIDDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, GANIGARA BEEDI, BANNUR TOWN, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20TH SEPTEMBER, 2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT IN CASE NO.R.P.90/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 13TH MARCH, 2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MYSURU SUB-DIVISION, MYSURU IN CASE NO.R.A.473/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-B; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners are challenging the order dated 20th September, 2022 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner in Case No.R.P.90/2019; inter alia sought for confirming the order dated 13th March, 2019 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner in Case No.R.A.473/2017. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27173 WP NO.24320 OF 2022 2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners claim to be a legal representatives of one late Huchhe Gowda. The said late Huchhe Gowda had purchased the schedule property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 12th April, 1970 and thereafter, the mutation was changed in favour of late Huchhe Gowda and contesting respondents herein as per the INH (MR) No.29/1988-89. The said entry was challenged by the petitioners before the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner in Case No.R.A.473/2017. The respondent No.2, after considering the material on record, by order dated 13th March, 2019 (Annexure-B), accepted the appeal preferred by the petitioners and set-aside the INH (MR) No.29/1988-89 passed by the respondent No.1 as to incorporating the names of contesting respondents herein along with late Huchhe Gowda. Thereafter, the said order of the respondent No.2 was challenged by the respondent No.6 herein before the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition Case No.R.P.90/2019. The respondent No.3, after re-appreciating the material on record, by order dated 20th September, 2022 (Annexure-A), allowed the Revision Petition and set-aside the order dated 13th March, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27173 WP NO.24320 OF 2022 2019 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.2 and as such, confirmed the Mutation order bearing No. INH (MR)29/1988-89 passed by the respondent No.1-Tahsildar. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 3. Heard Sri. M.J. Alva, learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5; and Sri. S. Visweswaraiah, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 9. 4. Sri. M.J. Alva, learned counsel appearing for petitioners contended that the said late Huchhe Gowda purchased the schedule property under the registered Sale Deed dated 12th April, 1970 (Annexure-C) and as such, the said property is the self acquired property of late Huchhe Gowda. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for petitioners argued that the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner has committed an error in interfering with the order passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of GOLAPPA vs. MALAKAPPA reported - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27173 WP NO.24320 OF 2022 in ILR 1995 KAR 118 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri. S. Visweswaraiah, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 9 contended that the property purchased by late Huchhe Gowda is through the proceeds of the joint family property of late Hucche Gowda and the contesting respondents herein and therefore, the entry has been properly made in the mutation taking into consideration the consent of late Huchhe Gowda. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 5 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the respondent No.3. 7. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of writ papers, the same would indicate that, late Huchhe Gowda had purchased the schedule property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 12th April, 1970 (Annexure-C). On perusal of the finding recorded by both the respondent-Authorities, it is forthcoming that, the respondent No.2, after considering the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27173 WP NO.24320 OF 2022 material on record that the schedule property has been acquired by late Huchhe Gowda, had set-aside the INH (MR)29/1988-89 passed by the respondent No.1 as to the entry of the names of contesting respondents herein along with late Huchhe Gowda. However, the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner has committed an error in interfering with the order passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner by allowing the Revision Petition, without considering the provision under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 8. Therefore, following the law declared by this Court in the case of GOLAPPA (supra), I am of the view that the respondent No.3 committed an error in interfering with the well reasoned order passed by the respondent No.2. Accordingly, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition allowed; (ii) Order dated 20th September, 2022 (Annexure- A) passed by the respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner in Case No.R.P.90/2019 is - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27173 WP NO.24320 OF 2022 hereby set-aside, consequently, order dated 13th March, 2019 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner in Case No.R.A.473/2017 is confirmed; (iii) It is made clear that, in order to enable the claim over the schedule property, respondents 6 to 9 are directed to establish their right over the schedule property in a manner known to law, if so advised. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60