Karnataka High Court
Sri K H Ashwathaiah vs The Deputy Commissioner on 1 April, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13561
WP No. 4562 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 4562 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI K H ASHWATHAIAH
S/O. LATE HANUMANTHA BHOVI,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
R/O. KANCHIGANAHALLI,
BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT 572 125.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESH K R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMAKURU DISTRICT,
TUMAKURU 572 101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
Digitally
signed by MADHUGIRI SUB-DIVISION,
KIRAN
KUMAR R MADHUGIRI,
Location: TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 132.
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 3. THE TAHASILDAR,
SIRA TALUK, SIRA,
TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572137
4. SRI. PUTTAGIRIYAPPA,
S/O. LATE SRINIVASAPPA,
AGED MAJOR.
5. SRI. PUTTATHIMMAPPA,
S/O. LATE SRINIVASAPPA,
AGED MAJOR.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13561
WP No. 4562 of 2025
R-4 & R-5 ARE R/O. KANCHIGANAHALLI,
BUKKAPATNA HOBLI, SIRA TALUK,
TUMKURU DISTRICT 572 125.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.MANJUNATH., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS AND QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
28.06.2021 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.RP-
14/2008-09 AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE ORDER DATED
11.02.2008 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CASE
NO.RRT(A) 12.2007-08 AT ANNEXURE-G, ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
1. Hanumantha Bhovi, the father of the petitioner had
instituted a suit for declaration that he was the
owner of the suit property, which was land bearing
Sy.No.15 measuring 1 acre. This suit was decreed,
but in appeal the decree was reversed and the suit
was dismissed.
2. A second appeal was preferred by Hanumantha Bhovi
before this Court in R.S.A. No.3362/2006 and this
Court by judgment dated 07.04.2021 confirmed the
NC: 2025:KHC:13561
judgment of the Appellate Court after recording a
clear finding that Hanumantha Bhovi had not
purchased the entire 4 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.15
and 1 acre of land out of the said extent of 4 acres 5
guntas was retained by his vendor Thimmakka.
3. Based on this particular judgment, the Revenue
Authorities mutated the entries and made out the
katha in respect of 1 acre in respect of the legal
representatives of Thimmakka, i.e., Putta Giriyappa
vide M.R. No.2/2006-07.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was
preferred to the Assistant Commissioner by the
petitioner, but the Assistant Commissioner dismissed
the appeal. Revision was also preferred to the
Deputy Commissioner, which also ended in dismissal.
As a consequence, the petitioner is before this Court.
5. In my view, the orders passed by the Revenue
Authorities mutating the name of Putta Giriyappa in
NC: 2025:KHC:13561
respect of 1 acre cannot be found fault with, since
the Civil Courts have recorded a clear finding that
Hanumantha Bhovi had not purchased entire 4 acres
5 guntas in Sy.No.15 and out of the entire extent of
4 acres 5 guntas, 1 acre of land had been retained
by Thimmakka.
6. If the finding of the Civil Court is that Thimmakka
had retained 1 acre, it is obvious that her legal
representatives would be entitled to have their name
entered in the revenue records and the petitioner
having suffered a decree in the Civil Court cannot
claim the entries to be made in respect of the entire
extent of land.
7. The Authorities were, therefore, justified in rejecting
the claim of the petitioner. There is no good ground
made out to entertain this Writ Petition. This Writ
Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:13561
8. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending
interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
SD/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA)
JUDGE
HNM
