- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32066 WP No. 58430 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 58430 OF 2016 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: MR P TARACHAND S/O PRATHAP CHAND AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT THOGARIGHATTA VILLAGE HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTIRCT – 572129. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NISHANTH A V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR – 572101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADHUGIRI SUB DIVISION MADHUGIRI - 572132 TUMKUR DISTRICT. 3. MR SUNIL KUMAR S/O LATE S R BHALLA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS NO 2, RZ-11,M - NEW BLOCK ROSHAN PUR STREET NO 2,NAJATGARH, NEW DELHI – 110043. 4. MR R MANJUNATHA SWAMY S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS KARLAGHATTA HOLAVARANAHALLI POST Digitally signed by DHANALAKSHMI MURTHY Location: HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32066 WP No. 58430 of 2016 KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572129. 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR HOLAVANAHALLI HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK - 572129 TUMKUR DISTRICT. 6. THE TAHSILDAR KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572191. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N, HCGP. FOR R1,R2 R5 & R6: SRI N KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN R.P.88/11-12, DATED:24.10.2016 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER IN RRT(A)-261/2007-08, DATED: 8.8.2011 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D 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 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The petitioner is assailing the order dated 24.10.2016 (Annexure-J) passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 08.08.2011 (Annexure-D) passed by the respondent No.2, inter alia sought for a direction to respondent No.5 to restore the revenue entry in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32066 WP No. 58430 of 2016 M.R.No.3/2006-07 dated 08.09.2006 in favour of the petitioner. 3. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, mutation in M.R.No.3/2006-07 was made by the respondent No.6, based on the registered Sale Deed dated 14.11.1996. In this regard, respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the impugned orders at Annexures-J and D, respectively, have arrived at a conclusion by setting aside the mutation made in favour of the petitioner on the ground of veracity of the registered Sale Deed dated 14.11.1996. 4. It is well established principle in law that, revenue authorities have no authority under law to interfere with the registered documents, which is in the domain of the Civil Court. 5. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32066 WP No. 58430 of 2016 6. Accordingly, I pass the following order: ORDER a) The writ petition is allowed. b) The order dated 24.10.2016 (Annexure-J) passed by respondent No.1 and order dated 08.08.2011 (Annexure-D) passed by the respondent No.2, are hereby set aside. c) Respondent No.6 is directed to restore the revenue entry in M.R.No.3/2006-07 based on the registered Sale Deed dated 14.11.1996. d) However, it is open for the parties to approach the competent Civil Court, if they are aggrieved with regard to their title, in a manner known to law. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE HA LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 42