[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Chandrappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 8 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:51765
WP No. 13114 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 13114 OF 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI CHANDRAPPA
S/O GIRIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/O HOUSE LIST NO.86
R/AT HIRANDAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK.
2. SMT. MUNIYAMMA
W/O CHINTHALAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS
R/AT HIRANDAHALLI VILLAGE,
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONERS
by PANKAJA S
(BY SRI. N S BHAT., ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF AND:
KARNATAKA
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:51765
WP No. 13114 of 2019
HC-KAR
KRISHNARAJAPURA,
BENGALURU.
4. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK.
5. SRI CHIKKAVEERA NAGAPPA
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRs.,
5(a) NARAYANAMMA
W/O CHIKKAVEERA NAGAPPA
5(b) SIDDAPPA
S/O CHIKKAVEERA NAGAPPA
5(c) NAGENDRA
S/O CHIKKAVEERA NAGAPPA
5(d) SRIKANTH
S/O CHIKKAVEERA NAGAPPA
5(e) MUNIRAJ
S/O CHIKKAVEERA NAGAPPA
ALL ARE R/AT
BIDARAHALLI HOBLI,
BENGALURU EAST TALUK.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K S, AGA FOR R1-R4;
SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR C, ADVOCATE FOR
LRs OF R5 ie., R5(a-e))
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.02.2019 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU -
R-1 IN REVISION PETITION 75/2015-16 AS PER ANNEXURE-J
AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2015
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:51765
WP No. 13114 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN RA (BE) 160/2010-11 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU-R2 AS PER ANENXURE-F AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS
ON 05.12.2025 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CAV ORDER
1. The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking a writ of
certiorari to quash the order dated 15.02.2019 passed by
respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban
District, Bengaluru in Revision Petition No.75/2015-16 vide
Annexure-J and consequently confirm the order dated
04.04.2015 passed by the respondent No.2 - Assistant
Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru as per
Annexure-F and to restore mutation in MR.No.35/2008-2009
vide Annexure-E in favour of the petitioners in respect of
Sy.No.110, measuring 20 guntas situated at Hirandahalli
village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk (for brevity,
"subject land").
2. The grievance of the petitioners is that one Chinthalappa
i.e. the husband of petitioner No.2 and father (foster) of
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:51765
WP No. 13114 of 2019
HC-KAR
petitioner No.1 has purchased the subject land from one
H.V.Seshagiri under a registered Sale Deed dated 23.11.1978
and the khatha was transferred in his name and Pahani was
entered vide MR No.1/1983-84.
3. After the demise of said Chinthalappa on 01.09.2007, the
petitioners, being his foster son and wife respectively, have
succeeded to the subject land and they made an application
before respondent No.4 - the Deputy Tahsildar to mutate their
name in the revenue record in respect of subject land. After
enquiry, the Deputy Tahsildar has passed an order dated
01.09.2008 in RRT (BE) CR 174/2008-09 and restored
MR.No.1/1983-84.
4. Later, the petitioners have filed an application before
respondent No.3 - Tahsildar to transfer the khatha of the
subject land in their names by way of inheritance and after an
enquiry, the Tahsildar has transferred the khatha in their
names vide Pouthi Khatha in MR No.35/2008-09.
5. After lapse of two years, respondent No.5 - Chikkaveera
Nagappa has preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 -
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:51765
WP No. 13114 of 2019
HC-KAR
Assistant Commissioner, challenging the mutation entry in MR
No.35/2008-09 in respect of the subject land. However, the
Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal vide order dated
04.04.2015. Against the said order, respondent No.5 preferred
a revision petition before respondent No.1 - Deputy
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the
revision petition by setting aside the order dated 04.04.2019
passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated
15.02.2019. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are
before this Court.
6. Heard Sri N.S. Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners,
Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., learned Additional Government
Advocate for respondents 1 to 4, Sri Chandrashekar. C.,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.5(a) to 5(e).
7. The primary contention of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that, after the death of original owner of the
subject land - Chinthalappa, petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2
being his foster son and wife respectively inherited the property
and the mutation and khatha were entered in their name.
However, respondent No.5, being the brother of late
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:51765
WP No. 13114 of 2019
HC-KAR
Chinthalappa, had claimed right over the subject land based on
the mutation in MR.No.17/1998-99 dated 15.03.1999. The said
mutation entry effected only based on an application filed by
respondent No.5 without having any right or interest over the
subject land. He further contended that, petitioner No.1 had
claimed right on the subject land being the foster son of late
Chinthalappa and also by virtue unregistered Gift Deed dated
06.11.2010 and an affidavit dated 10.11.2008 executed by
petitioner No.2. In such circumstance, the Assistant
Commissioner has rightly changed the khatha in the name of
petitioners, whereas the Deputy Commissioner has erred in
passing the impugned order. Accordingly, he prays to allow the
writ petition.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5(a) to
5(e) contended that, petitioner No.1 is totally a stranger to the
family of late Chinthalappa and petitioner No.2 - Muniyamma.
According to him, the petitioner No.1 is not a foster son of late
Chinthalappa and Muniyamma and the said aspect was not
proved before the Competent Court. Additionally, the alleged
Gift Deed and the affidavit relied on by petitioner No.1 are
concocted documents in order to grab the subject land.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:51765
WP No. 13114 of 2019
HC-KAR
According to the learned counsel, during the pendency of the
dispute before the Deputy Commissioner, petitioner No.2 -
Muniyamma has filed an affidavit dated 25.01.2019 stating that
petitioner No.1 was not a foster son and he produced a false
family tree before the authority and fraudulently got changed
the khatha with respect to subject land. In such circumstance,
the Deputy Commissioner has rightly passed the impugned
order. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. Learned AGA appearing for respondents 1 to 4 supports
the impugned order and alternatively, submits that the matter
may be remanded for fresh consideration.
10. As could be gathered from records, after the death of
Chinthalappa, the original owner of the subject land, petitioner
No.2 his wife and petitioner No.1 who claims to be his foster
son have filed an application before the Tahsildar for change of
khatha and accordingly, the revenue record was mutated in
their name and khatha was also transferred in their name
jointly.
11. However, later in the year 1998-1999, respondent No.5
made an application before the Tahsildar stating that he is
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:51765
WP No. 13114 of 2019
HC-KAR
brother of late Chinthalappa and since late Chinthalappa died
issueless, he being the Class-II heir of late Chinthalappa was
entitled of inheritance of the subject land. Based on the said
application, the mutation has been changed by the Deputy
Tahsildar in his name. The contention of the learned counsel for
respondent No.5(a) to 5(e) is that, petitioner No.1 is not a
foster son of late Chinthalappa and the application filed by him
before the Tahsildar that he is the only son of late Chinthalappa
is totally false and the alleged Gift Deed and declaration are
also fabricated and since the same are unregistered documents
and no legal sanctity could be attached to them and since
petitioner No.2 had also filed an affidavit before the Deputy
Commissioner stating that petitioner No.1 is not the foster son
of late Chinthalappa and her, the Deputy Commissioner has
rightly allowed the revision petition filed by respondent No.5.
This contention of the respondent No.5(a) to 5(e) does not hold
much water for the simple reason that the mutation entered in
the name of respondent No.5 in MR No.17/1998-99 was only
based on his application without producing any supporting
document to establish his right by way of Class-II inheritance
and the affidavit of petitioner No.2 relied on by respondent
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC:51765
WP No. 13114 of 2019
HC-KAR
Nos.5(a) to 5(e) was alleged to have been filed by respondent
No.5 after the case was posted for judgment by the Deputy
Commissioner. In such circumstance, the Deputy Commissioner
ought to have remitted the matter back to the Tahsildar to
conduct a detailed enquiry in respect of legal right of both the
parties with respect to subject land by extending opportunity to
both the parties. Accordingly I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed in part.
ii. The impugned order dated 15.02.2019
passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District,
Bengaluru in R.P No.75/2015-16 at
Annexure-'A' and also the order dated
04.04.2015 passed by respondent No.2 -
Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North
Sub-Division, Bengaluru at Annexure-'F' are
hereby quashed.
iii. The matter is remitted back to the Tahsildar
for reconsideration by extending
opportunity to both the parties to put forth
their case along with the relevant
documents.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51765
HC-KAR
iv. Till such time, mutation and khatha of the
subject land shall be continued in the name
of petitioner No.1 as well as respondent
Nos.5(a) to 5(e).
v. The parties are directed to maintain status-
quo in respect of possession of subject land,
till the matter is decided afresh by the
Tahsildar.
SD/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
PKS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42
