Karnataka High Court
Chiranthan vs The Deputy Commissioner on 29 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29747
WP No. 12678 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.12678 OF 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. CHIRANTHAN
S/O S J JNANACHANDRA
AGED 14 YEARS
2. KOHEEM
S/O S J JNANACHANDRA
AGED 4 YEARS
PETITIONERS ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER
SRI.S.J.JNANACHANDRA
S/O T.S.JANARDHANA
NO.2956/13, 4TH CROSS
Digitally signed VINAYAKA LAYOUT
by ALBHAGYA NEAR POLICE CHOWKI
Location: HIGH DAVANAGERE TALUK
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND DISTRICT-577 202.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
DAVANAGERE-577 001
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29747
WP No. 12678 of 2015
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISON
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577001
3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR
CHENNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 202
4. SRI.SHIVARAJ
S/O T.S.JANARDHAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
NO.568, 17TH DIVISION
K.B. LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE - 577 002
5. SRI.T.S.GIRISH
S/O T.S.JANARDHAN
MAJOR
KASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577 002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHREEDEEP N, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 AND R.5;
SRI.HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM R-1 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING
OF ORDER ANNX-A DT.6.3.2015 MADE IN NO.RA/CR-29/2014-15
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29747
WP No. 12678 of 2015
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners, in this captioned writ petition, are
assailing the order dated 06.03.2015 passed by
respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner as per
Annexure-A.
2. The petitioners are claiming title over the
property in question on the basis of the Will dated
12.08.2010 executed by their paternal grandfather. The
petitioners contend that their grandfather, during his
lifetime, has effected partition and has allotted shares to
all his children in the immovable properties held by him
excluding the petition property bearing Sy. No.45. The
petitioners contend that by way of last testamentary
arrangements, their grandfather has bequeathed the
petition property under the Will dated 12.08.2010.
3. Placing reliance on the Will, the names of
petitioners', who are legatees, were mutated in the
revenue records.
NC: 2024:KHC:29747
4. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 feeling aggrieved by
the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner
preferred a revision before respondent No.1/the Deputy
Commissioner. Respondent No.1/the Deputy
Commissioner vide impugned order has allowed the
revision and the petitioners are relegated to establish their
right under the disputed Will by approaching the
competent Civil Court.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners and learned AGA appearing for respondent
Nos.1 to 3.
6. The short point that falls for consideration is as to
whether the petitioners based on a Will are entitled to get
their names mutated and correspondingly, whether the
Revenue Officials are obligated to effect mutation based on
the disputed Will.
7. The issue on hand does not detain this Court for
long in the light of law laid down by the Full Bench of this
NC: 2024:KHC:29747
Court in the case of C.N.NAGENDRA SINGH VS.
SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE AND
OTHERS1. In the above cited judgment, the Full Bench
has clearly held that the legatee cannot seek mutation
based on a Will. The Full Bench has further held that
Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
does not confer jurisdiction on the Revenue Authorities to
effect entries in the records of rights merely on the basis
of the Will.
8. In the light of the law laid down by the Full Bench
in the judgment cited supra, the order passed by
respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner does not warrant
any interference. Since the Will is disputed, the petitioners
have to be relegated to the competent Civil Court to seek
adjudication of their rights on the basis of the Will. Unless
Will is tested before the competent Civil Court, the
petitioners, who are asserting right on the basis of the
Will, are not entitled to seek mutation in the revenue
2002 ILR (Karnataka) 2750
NC: 2024:KHC:29747
records. Therefore, it was well within the Authority of
respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner in relegating the
petitioners to substantiate their right based on the Will.
Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down by the
Full Bench, the order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy
Commissioner does not suffer from any material
irregularity. Therefore, no interference is warranted at the
hands of this Court.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to prove the Will
in the manner known to law.
The writ petition is disposed off.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
