- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13019-DB WA No. 1076 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1076 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. JAYARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA @ KAKYAPPA 2. SRI. HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O. LATE. MUNIYAPPA @ KAKYAPPA 3. SRI. DEVARAJ, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O, LATE, MUNIYAPPA@KAKYAPPA ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF HANCHARAHALLY VILLAGE, BIDRAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALRE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560 049. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. NARENDRA S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYABHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13019-DB WA No. 1076 of 2025 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYABHAVAN, K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036. 4. SMT. RAMAKKA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, W/O, LATE, SHANKARAPPA, R/O HANCHARAHALLY VILLAGE, BIDRAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE - 560049 MYSORE 5. SRI. K.V.MANJUNATH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O K.N.VENKATESH REDDY, R/AT NO.35, SUDARSHAN NILAYA, J.P.NAGAR, 1ST PHASE, BANGALORE - 560 078. 6. REVENUE INSPECTOR, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE - 560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NARENDRA S., ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.23171/2023 (KLR) BY RESTORING THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT-3 PASSED IN M.R No.H4/2012- - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13019-DB WA No. 1076 of 2025 13 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.09.2012 AND RESTORE THE REVENUE ENTRIES MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANTS AS PER ORDERS OF THE RESPONDENT No-2 PASSED IN RA(BE) 175/2012-13 VIDE ORDER DATED 02.06.2014. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) This intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 by respondent Nos.4 to 6 has been filed challenging the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23171/2023. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge. 3. Heard, Sri.Narendra.S., learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13019-DB WA No. 1076 of 2025 1 to 3 & 6, Sri.K.vijaya Kumar., learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri.R.Badrinath., learned counsel for respondent No.5. 4. The petitioner claims to be the owner of land in Sy.No.46/2 measuring 01 Acre 09 Guntas of Kodigehalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. She further submitted that originally the land belonged to one Pillappa S/o.Doddashankarappa and after the demise of Pillappa, his wife Muniyamma and her two sons have sold an extent of 02 Acres 22 Guntas in Sy.No.46/2 of Kodigehalli Village in favor of Narayanappa S/o.Kunigal Bachappa and Muniyappa @ Kakyappa through a registered Sale Deed dated 13.08.1956 (Annexure-C to the Writ Petition). 5. After the execution of the sale deed dated 13.08.1956, remaining property was retained by the family. A mutation came to be entered in M.R.No.H4/2012-13 dated 10.09.2012 in the name of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13019-DB WA No. 1076 of 2025 petitioner in respect of remaining land in Sy.No.46/2 to an extent of 01 Acre 21 Guntas. 6. The said mutation order was called in question before the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner in RA (BE) 175/2012-13. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and set-aside the mutation entry and directed to mutate the name of the private respondent in the revenue records. 7. The petitioner preferred revision before the Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.279/2014-15 and the same came to be dismissed on 19.08.2023 (Annexure-A) confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by both the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.23171/2023. 8. The learned Single Judge after going through the papers, found that in view of the sale deed and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13019-DB WA No. 1076 of 2025 retaining the remaining property with the family of the petitioner, both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner without taking note of the entire facts and circumstances, interfered with the mutation order in favor of petitioner vide Annexure-H. In that view of the aforesaid, learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and directed respondent No.3 - Tahsildar to restore M.R.No.H4/2012-13 in favor of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge is called in question in this appeal. 9. Sri.Narendra.S., learned counsel though has argued on several points but unable to make out a case to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He submits that in terms of the Sale Deed at Annexure-C, the extent of land which was sold was 02 Acre 22 Guntas, out of 03 Acres 31 Guntas, then the remaining extent of the land would be 01 Acre 09 guntas and not 01 Acre 21 Guntas. However, in the mutation at - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13019-DB WA No. 1076 of 2025 Annexure-H, it is stated as 01 Acre 21 Guntas as remaining in Sy.No.46/2 and mutated the same in the name of the petitioner. This fact has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and he submits that the claim is only to an extent of 01 Acre 09 Guntas, which is clearly mentioned in Paragraph No.5 of the Memorandum of Writ Petition. 10. Both the counsel in unison submit that if the Revenue Authorities are directed to correct the extent of land in the revenue records that would put quietus to the dispute if any between the parties as they have no other dispute except the extent of land. We have gone through Annexure-H, the mutation entries effected in the year 2012. It is not in dispute that as per Annexure-C, out of 03 Acres 31 Guntas, 02 Acres 22 Guntas has been sold way back in the year 1956. Hence, the remaining extent of land in Sy.No.46/2 is 01 Acre 09 Guntas. However, in the mutation entry it is mentioned as 01 Acre 21 Guntas, which is factually incorrect. Accordingly, we direct the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13019-DB WA No. 1076 of 2025 Revenue Authorities especially respondent No.3 - Tahsildar to correct the mutation by showing the remaining extent of the property in Sy.No.46/2 as 01 Acre 09 Guntas instead of 01 Acre 21 Guntas. 11. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8