- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11958 WP No. 6367 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 6367 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI MUNIVENKATAIAH @ SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH R/AT BAPUJI NAGARA VILLAGE KASARAGHATTA DHAKLE SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123. 2. SRI. ANAND K AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA 3. SMT. BANU PRIYA GOPAL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O SRI. ANAND K PETITIONERS NO.2 & 3 ARE R/A HALEHALLI VILLAGE MAYASANDRA POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 562 107 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LOKESH R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU RURAL-562110. Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11958 WP No. 6367 of 2026 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA-561203. 3. THE TAHASILDAR NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123. 4. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DIVISION, REVENUE DEPARTMENT & NODAL OFFICER OFFICE OF EX OFFICIO SECRETARY (ECONOMIC OFFENCE) 2nd FLOOR, B.M.T.C BUILDING, K H ROAD, BENGALURU-560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKHAR., AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED. 07.02.2026 PASSED IN CASE NO.REV(RVN)/21/2025 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-X AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, DIRECTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO RESTORE THE KATHA, MUTATION AND OTHER REVENUE RECORDS TO THE JOINT NAMES OF THE PETITIONER NOS. 2 AND 3 VIDE M.R. NO.H10/2025-26 ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11958 WP No. 6367 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-X dated 06.02.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District in proceedings bearing No.Rev(Rvn)/21/2025. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Deputy Commissioner was requested to take up the revisional proceedings suo motu in terms of Section 56(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, pursuant to a communication made by the Regional Commissioner, Bangalore Division in proceedings bearing No.RA(Ne) 224/2024 dated 07.01.2025, since it was found that the first petitioner herein who filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 136(2) in RA(Ne) 224/2024 where he had impleaded only the Tahsildar, Nelmangala Taluk as the respondent while seeking entry - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11958 WP No. 6367 of 2026 of his name in the revenue records pursuant to a family partition said to have taken place on 18.02.2009. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the action of the Regional Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner cannot be faulted, since this Court has held in several such cases and has found fault with the action of the Assistant Commissioners who have passed orders in such cases where only the Tahsildar is made as a party respondent to the proceedings and the person whose name would be removed from the revenue records has not been made a party to the proceedings. The principles of natural justice would require a notice to be issued to the person whose name would be removed from the revenue records. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners however submits that petitioners No.2 and 3 have further purchased the property at the hands of petitioner No.1. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Additional Government - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11958 WP No. 6367 of 2026 Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that no infirmity can be found in the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner which was accentuated as per the directions issued by the Regional Commissioner. If the petitioners No.2 and 3 have purchased the lands from petitioner No.1 under a registered sale deed, their rights would not be affected in any way, subject to the consideration whether petitioner No.1 had right, title and interest in the lands sold away to petitioners No.2 and 3. After issuing notice to all persons concerned the Tahsildar shall reconsider the representation given by petitioner No.1. 6. With these observations the writ petition stands disposed of. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL/CT: JL