- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14618-DB WA No. 643 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH 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. 643 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.VISHWANATH S., S/O SRINIVAS H., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WORKING AS TAHASILDAR, BANGALORE BUSINESS CORRIDOR, BANAGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, KUMARA KRUPA WEST,GUTTAHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 020. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. KEMPAHANUMAIAH, S/O LATE DODDAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, 2. SRI. S.D. LENKAIAH, S/O. LATE DODDAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 3. SRI. LENKAIAH, S/O. LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, 4. SRI. RAJANNA, S/O. LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14618-DB WA No. 643 of 2025 5. SRI. HARISH, S/O. LATE SANJEEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, 6. SRI. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. LATE SANJEEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 7. SRI. PRADEEPA, S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT KADAMATHIKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR - 572 130. 8. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 9. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR - 572 101. 10. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR - 572 101. 11. THE TAHASILDAR, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR - 572 101. 12. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O. LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14618-DB WA No. 643 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, RESIDING AT GAVIMATA, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT -572 101. DELETED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 11.03.2026 SINCE R12 IS DEAD AND RESPRESENTED BY LR's- R13. 13. SMT. GANGALAKSHMAMMA, D/O. LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT GAVIMATA, KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.NAGESH., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4, SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R8 TO R11, R5, R6 AND R7 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED, VIDE ORDER DATED 11.03.2026 R12 IS NO MORE AND REPRESNETED BY HER LR R13, SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R13) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE WRIT PETITION No.16499/2024 (KLR-RES) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:19.02.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.16499/2024 (KLR-RES) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO DIRECTION AT PARA 12 (v) AND (vi) ARE CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14618-DB WA No. 643 of 2025 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 D K SINGH) The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 19.02.2025 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.16499/2024. The appellant was respondent No.4 before the writ Court. The petition was filed by the respondents assailing the impugned order dated 18.11.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, order dated 15.03.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as order dated 01.02.2024 passed by the present appellant/respondent No.4 before the writ Court. 2. The petitioner's case was that the land in Sy.No.97 measuring 1 acre 32 guntas situated in Kadamathikere village, Kasaba Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14618-DB WA No. 643 of 2025 Tumakuru District was their ancestral property and revenue entries with respect to the said land in favour of the petitioners was made way back in the year 1968. The said land was recorded in the name of Doddahanumaiah and Chikhahanumaiah. The RTC would reflect that Doddahanumaiah was holding land 1 acre 32 guntas, while the widow of Chikkahanumaiah held 1 acre and 23 guntas. An unregistered partition deed was executed in the year 1982 within the family of Doddahanumaiah. Similarly another partition took place in the family of Chikkahanumaiah. Both the partition deeds were unregistered documents. However, these documents were recognised by the revenue authorities and according to the partition, revenue entries were reflected, reflecting the names of the parties in the RTC. 3. The legal heirs of Chikkahanumaiah, namely Siddamma and her children had sold 22 guntas of land to Sri.Lenkaiah-petitioner No.2 in the writ petition vide registered sale deed dated 07.05.2007. The Private - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14618-DB WA No. 643 of 2025 respondents had filed a Civil suit in O.S.No.116/2008 seeking declaration of absolute ownership and recovery of the possession in respect of the property in question. They had challenged the validity of the sale deed dated 07.05.2007 with respect to the 22 guntas of land which was allegedly executed by Siddamma. The Civil Court dismissed this suit by judgment and decree dated 28.06.2018. 4. The petitioners had filed four independent suits for injunction, simplicitor, all of which were decreed in their favour restraining the respondent No.5 to 6 in the writ petition from interfering with their peaceful possession. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 who suffered the decree without disclosing the fact that their suit was dismissed in respect of cancellation of the registered sale dated 07.05.2007 and they were restrained from interfering with the peaceful possession of the suit schedule properties, approached the Deputy Commissioner and initiated proceedings without impleading the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14618-DB WA No. 643 of 2025 petitioners. The Deputy Commissioner without verifying the record or hearing all concerned parties entertained the revision under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and allowed the revision petition under Section 136(2) and remanded the matter back to the respondent No.3, that is, to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner on remand allowed the appeal and referred the matter to the Tahsildar, the appellant herein. The appellant commenced the inquiry without the participation of the petitioners in violation of the due process as contemplated under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Rules therein. 5. On learning about the ongoing proceedings before respondent No.4, the petitioners sought to implead themselves and submitted relevant reports. The Tahsildar was informed about the demise of the petitioner's sister. However, the Tahsildar without giving any further opportunity to the petitioners vide order dated 01.02.2024 directed restoration of Sanjeevaiah's name in the revenue - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14618-DB WA No. 643 of 2025 record. This decision was made without taking into consideration the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in dismissing the suit filed by the private respondents impleaded as respondent Nos.5 and before the writ Court. 6. Learned Single Judge found that the conduct of the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner and Tahsildar in directing for change of the revenue record in favour of Sanjeevaiah was against the procedure prescribed under the statute and in violation of the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court. 7. Learned Single Judge considered the fact that respondent Nos.5 and 6 had lost the civil suit. They had challenged the mutation entry without disclosing this fact. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has opined that the actions of the appellant-respondent No.4/Tahsildar lack a legal basis and were in contravention of the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court. The orders - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14618-DB WA No. 643 of 2025 passed by the Tahsildar were also in violation of the mandatory provisions as provided under Section 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and further held that the actions of the appellant were influenced by extraneous factors, and therefore, it is a fit case for initiating departmental inquiry against the Tahsildar. The Principal Secretary, Revenue department has been directed to initiate proceedings and report compliance to the Registry of this Court. 8. Mr.Satish.K, learned counsel for appellant submits that respondent No.4 has passed the order in exercise of his quasi judicial function and a mistake or an omission or error while discharging the quasi-judicial function would not attract the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant. He therefore, submits that the direction by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment to initiate departmental proceedings against the appellant are wholly unwarranted and unsustainable in law. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14618-DB WA No. 643 of 2025 the judgment in the case of Amresh Shrivastava Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others1. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.12 and 13, who were petitioners before the writ Court submits that the actions of the appellant-Tahsildar in ignoring the order passed by the competent Civil Court and mutating the name of Sanjeevaiah, was not a bonafide act in discharge of the quasi-judicial function, but it was done in a most arbitrary, illegal and malafide manner. The actions of appellant/Tahsildar were guided by considerations other than legal as observed by the learned Single judge and therefore, the learned Single judge has rightly directed for initiation of the departmental proceedings against the appellant. 10. Having considered the facts, circumstances and submissions, we are of the considered view that if an 1 Civil Appeal No.10590/2024 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14618-DB WA No. 643 of 2025 action even in exercise of the quasi-judicial function has not been taken in accordance with the provisions of the law, but for extraneous considerations, this would attract the appropriate proceedings against such an Officer or the Authority. The learned Single judge in the impugned judgment and order has noted that the appellant's action in ignoring the judgment and decree of the competent Civil Court is nothing but malafide exercise of power for extraneous considerations. Therefore, the direction has been given for initiation of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner/appellant. 11. We find no substance in the submission of Mr.Satish.K, learned counsel for appellant that the appellant had taken action as per the direction issued by the Deputy Commissioner. 12. We do not find that Deputy Commissioner has issued any direction to mutate the name of Sanjeevaiah in - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14618-DB WA No. 643 of 2025 violation of the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court. 13. Further, having considered the submissions, we deem it appropriate to modify the impugned judgment and order, and instead of departmental proceedings against the appellant, we direct the appellant and issue him a warning that he should be more careful while performing his functions and should not repeat the same mistake in future. 14. With the aforesaid modification, we dismiss this appeal. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 ct-vn