- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2815 WP No. 1822 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 1822 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI PADAM KUMAR S/O VILAS KUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 2. SRI AVISH KUMAR S/O VILAS KUMAR AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 3. SRI VINAY KUMAR S/O VIKAS KUMAR AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS OWNERS OF LAND BEARING SURVEY NO 110/1 R/A KOGILU VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBLI, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK PIN 560064 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRIDHAR B.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M. SHIVAPRAKASH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEUPTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2815 WP No. 1822 of 2024 BANGALORE 560001. 2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE 560001. 3. THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE 560001. 4. SMT Y G NIRMALA D/O LATE Y S GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 5. SMT Y G YASHODA D/O LATE Y S GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 6. SRI Y G PURUSHOTHAM S/O LATE Y S GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 7. SRI Y G MURALI PATIL S/O LATE Y S GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, SL. NOS.4 TO 7 ARE R/A NO. 174, SOMESHWARANAGAR, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN, BANGALORE 560064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SESHU.V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3 SRI. K.BALAKRISHNA., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4 TO R7) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2815 WP No. 1822 of 2024 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN RA (YLK) NO.214/2022 DTD 29.9.2022 AND RP NO.492/2022 DTD 9.1.2024 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE R1 AND 2 IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned orders dated 29.09.2022 at Annexure ‘F’ passed by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub- Division in R.A.(YLK) No.214/2022, and the rejection of their revision petition at the hands of the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District in R.P.No.492/2022 at Annexure ‘H’ dated 09.01.2024. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners acquired title over the property in question viz., 2 acres 38 guntas of land in Survey No.110/1 situated at Kogilu Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Bangalore North (Addl.) Taluk, Bengaluru, under a registered sale - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2815 WP No. 1822 of 2024 deed dated 27.03.1992. The petitioners purchased the property from one Sri B.Keshava. Sri Keshava had acquired the property from one Sri R.Gopal. Nevertheless, it is submitted that by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 27.03.1992 mutation entry was made in the revenue records in terms of M.R.No.24/1991-92. 3. Learned counsel submits that after the petitioners attained majority they got the mutation entries in their name in terms of M.R No.50/2007-2008. Learned counsel submits that respondents No.4 to 7 were seeking to interfere in the suit schedule properties and when the petitioners resisted, respondents No.4 to 7 filed O.S.No.1596/2016 seeking declaration and permanent injunction. However, the said suit was dismissed for non- prosecution on 07.07.2022. At that stage, the contesting respondents filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division in RA (YLK) No.214/2022 raising challenge to the mutation entries made in M.R. No.24/1991-92 and M.R. No.50/2007-08. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2815 WP No. 1822 of 2024 4. Learned counsel submits that since the address was not shown correctly, notice was not served on the petitioners and the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order on 29.09.2022 setting aside the mutation entries while directing the Tahsildar to effect mutation and transfer of khata in the name of the private respondents. As soon as the petitioners came to know of the said fact, they filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, by virtue of the order dated 09.01.2024 passed at Annexure ‘H’, rejected the revision petition while observing that the petitioners will have to approach the Civil Court to redress their grievance. 5. Learned counsel submits that the Deputy Commissioner fell in error without taking note of the fact that the Assistant Commissioner had passed an order in the year 2022 setting aside the mutation entry of the year 1991-92 without there being a declaration in favour of the private respondents herein. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2815 WP No. 1822 of 2024 6. Learned counsel for the private respondents would however submit that such a direction has already been issued by the Deputy Commissioner that the petitioners will have to approach the competent Civil Court to address their grievance. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners, the Assistant Commissioner could not have passed the impugned order entertaining an appeal after delay of more than 40 years in questioning the mutation entries that were carried out in the year 1991-92. In fact, the Assistant Commissioner should have directed the private respondents herein to get a declaration at the hands of the competent Civil Court. It is also a fact that the private respondents herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.1596/2016 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru Rural District. However, there is no declaration made in favour of the private respondents herein. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2815 WP No. 1822 of 2024 8. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that the decision of the Deputy Commissioner in directing the petitioners to approach the City Civil Court to get a declaration of title is erroneous. Such a direction should have been issued to the private respondents who knocked at the doors of the revenue authorities to get a mutation entry changed after nearly 40 years after the mutation entries were made earlier. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.09.2022 passed by the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner at Annexure ‘F’ in R.A.(YLK) No.214/2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. Consequently, the order dated 09.01.2024 passed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner at Annexure ‘H’ in R.P.No.492/2022 is also quashed and set aside. Specific directions are hereby issued to the third respondent- Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk and first respondent- Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District to forthwith restore the revenue entries as they were prior to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2815 WP No. 1822 of 2024 the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure ‘F’. The entire exercise shall be completed as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. The impleading application in I.A.No.1/2025 filed by the subsequent purchaser stands disposed of, in view of the observations made herein. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE JT/- CT: JL