Karnataka High Court
Sir M S Nagaraju vs The Deputy Commissioner on 6 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5767
WP No. 10849 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.10849 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. M.S. NAGARAJU
S/O LATE M.S. SHESHAGIRI RAO
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
2. SRI.M.S. MADHAVA RAO
S/O LATE M.S.SHESHAGIRI RAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT RAMOHALLI VILLAGE
KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 060.
REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER
SRI.HEMANTHRAJU
S/O LATE MUNIRAJU
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
Digitally signed R/AT RAMOHALLI VILLAGE
by AL BHAGYA KENGERI HOBLI
Location: HIGH BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 060.
COURT OF
KARNATKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S. NAGESH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G. ROAD
BENGALURU-560 009.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5767
WP No. 10849 of 2018
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK
BENGALURU-560 060.
4. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA
W/O LATE RAJU
AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
5. SRI. NARASIMRAJU
S/O LATE RAJU
AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
6. SRI. KUMAR
S/O LATE RAJU
AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
7. SMT. HEMAVATHI
D/O LATE RAJU
AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
8. SMT. CHANDRAKALA
D/O LATE RAJU
AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
9. SRI. NARASIMRAJU
S/O LATE MUNI RAJU
AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
SINCE DEAD REP. BY HIS LRS.
9(a). SMT. LAKSHAMMA
W/O LATE NARASIMHA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
9(b). SRI. JANARDHAN
S/O LATE NARASIMHA RAJU
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5767
WP No. 10849 of 2018
RESPONDENTS 9(a) AND 9(b)
ARE R/AT NO.E-13, DODDI BEEDI
RAMOHALLI VILLAGE
VINAYAKANAGAR, KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 060.
10. SRI. S.N. VENKATESHMURTHY
S/O LATE S.N. MURTHY RAO
AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
11. SRI. S.N. SRINIVAS RAO
S/O LATE S.N. MURTHY RAO
AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
12. SRI. S.N.SRINATH
S/O LATE S.N. MURTHY RAO
AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
13. SRI.S.N. SHESHAGIRI RAO
S/O LATE S.N. MURTHY RAO
AGED NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS 4 TO 8 AND 10 TO 13 ARE
RESIDING AT RAMOHALLI VILLAGE
VINAYAKANAGAR, KENGERI HOBLI
BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-560 060.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R8;
SRI. VARUN .R.R, ADVOCATE FOR R10 TO R13;
SRI. BHASKAR RAO, ADVOCATE FOR 9(a) AND 9(b))
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.01.2018 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU, IN REVISION PETITION NO.13/2016-17, DATED
29.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE
ORDER DATED 04.04.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:5767
WP No. 10849 of 2018
TALUK, BENGALURU, IN RA(S)428/2014-15, DATED
04.04.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE -B AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners are assailing the order of respondent
No.1/Deputy Commissioner who has reversed the order
passed by respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner
directing to restore petitioners' name to the petition land
measuring 3 acre 3 guntas. These divergent orders are
under challenge by the petitioners herein.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners,
learned AGA appearing for respondents 1 to 3, learned
counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 8 and learned
counsel appearing for respondents 10 to 13.
3. The facts leading to the case are as under:
It is not in dispute that one M.S. Sheshagiri Rao, who
is the ancestor of petitioners herein filed an application
NC: 2025:KHC:5767
seeking grant of occupancy rights before the Special
Tahsildar, Inam Abolition Act. Petitioners assert that their
ancestor M.S. Sheshagiri Rao was conferred with
occupancy rights to an extent of 6.6 acres in Survey
No.91. Petitioners also admit in the writ petition that
petitioners' father M.S. Sheshagiri Rao conveyed 3 acres of
land in favour of R.B. Venktaraju in 1959. At para 4 of the
petition, petitioners also admit that their father M.S.
Sheshagiri Rao had a brother by name M.S.
Krishnamurthy, who was also party to the execution of
sale deed.
4. Petitioners primary assertion in this captioned
petition is that the occupancy rights granted by the
authority in favour of their father was exclusive and in his
individual capacity and that his brother had no semblance
of right in the land over which occupancy right is granted
by the competent authority. At Paragraphs 6 and 7,
petitioners also admit that one M.S. Krishnamurthy who is
the brother of Sheshagiri Rao has sold 1.10 acres in
NC: 2025:KHC:5767
Survey No.91, but this relates to Ramohalli Village, in
favour of one Muniraju. Petitioners therefore, claim that
their father having sold 3 acres in favour of R.B.
Venkataraju, in fact retained 3 acres 3 guntas and
therefore, petitioners are entitled to get their name
mutated to the remaining extent as their father has died
intestate leaving behind the petitioners herein as his
Class-I heirs and therefore, petitioners asserts that they
have inherited remaining extent of 3 acres 3 guntas.
5. The petitioners asserting inheritance rights
appears to have preferred an appeal before respondent
No.2/Assistant Commissioner. Respondent No.2/Assistant
Commissioner while examining the title deeds executed by
M.S. Krishnamurthy in favour of ancestor of respondents 4
to 8 concluded that the sale deed pertains to Ramohalli
Village, while the subject-matter admittedly being situated
at Maligondanahalli village, ordered to set aside the
existing mutations in favour of private respondents and
thereby directed the sub-ordinate revenue authorities to
NC: 2025:KHC:5767
restore the petitioners name to the remaining extent
measuring 3.3 acres in survey No.91.
6. The private respondents 4 to 8 assailing the
order of the Respondent No.1/Assistant Commissioner
preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner.
Respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner however taking
cognizance of the sale deed obtained by the ancestor of
respondents 4 to 8 held that the entries cannot be set
aside and therefore, resolved to relegate petitioners to
approach the competent Civil Court. Consequently, the
order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside.
7. These divergent orders are subjected to enquiry
before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
8. Before this Court delves into the matter to
examine as to whether the order of the Deputy
Commissioner requires judicial review at the hands of this
Court, this Court deems it fit to take a closer look at the
pleadings in the writ petition which may have some
NC: 2025:KHC:5767
bearing on the lis before this Court bearing in mind the
scope of enquiry arising out of the proceedings under
Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
being very narrow. Therefore, this Court deems it fit to
cull out paras 4 to 6 of the writ petition which reads as
under:
"4. It is submitted that, H.S. Sheshagiri Rao
being the absolute owner in possession of 6 acres
6 guntas, which was acquired by way of occupancy
rights, sold 3 acres in favour of R.B. Venkataraju in the
year 1959 and retained the remaining extent of land.
The said Sheshagiri Rao brother of H.S. Krishnamurthy
was also party to the execution of the sale deed.
5. It is submitted that, after execution of the
sale deed in favour of R.B. Venaktaraju, by
H.S. Sheshagiri and his brother H.S. Krishnamurthy,
R.B. Venkataraju was put in peaceful possession and
enjoyment of 3 acres and the revenue records were
also mutated in his favour.
6. It is submitted that, H.S. Krishnamurthy
brother of H.S. Sheshagiri Rao sold 1 acre 10 guntas
of land in Sy. No. 91 of Ramohalli Village, Kengeri
Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk in favour of Muniraju and
NC: 2025:KHC:5767
further sold remaining 1 acre 30 guntas of land in Sy.
No. 91 of Ramohalli Village in favour of Muniraju."
9. Upon a thorough and meticulous examination of
the records, it becomes evident that the sale deed
obtained by the grandfather of private respondents 4 to 8,
as found at Page 29 of the records, clearly demarcates the
northern portion as the property that was originally sold to
R.B. Venkataraju. Although the mutation proceedings are
not the appropriate forum for determining the validity of
sale deeds, this Court finds it necessary to scrutinize the
boundaries mentioned in the relevant sale deeds to a
limited extent. This limited inquiry is solely aimed at
identifying the proper party who must approach the
appropriate forum for seeking legal redress. The factual
matrix reveals that the father of private respondents 4 to
8 had acquired the property through a sale deed executed
as far back as 1959-60. This sale deed, irrespective of its
execution, was duly acted upon, resulting in corresponding
entries being made in the revenue records concerning the
land in Maligondanahalli village. Another crucial factor
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5767
warranting consideration is that M.S. Sheshagiri Rao, the
father of the petitioners, never raised any objections or
initiated legal proceedings to challenge the sale deed
executed by his brother, M.S. Krishnamurthy. Given this
sequence of events and the supporting documents, this
Court is inclined to conclude that the petitioners must seek
relief through a civil suit before a competent Court in
accordance with established legal procedures.
10. Furthermore, an inference may reasonably be
drawn from the analysis of paragraphs 4 to 6 that the
occupancy rights granted in favour of M.S. Sheshagiri Rao
were not conferred upon him in his individual capacity but
rather on behalf of other family members. This inference is
further reinforced by the undisputed fact that M.S.
Krishnamurthy was also a signatory to the sale deed when
M.S. Sheshagiri Rao sold 3 acres of land to R.B.
Venkataraju. This lends credence to the argument that the
remaining portion of land, subsequently sold by M.S.
Krishnamurthy, pertains to Survey No. 91 located in
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5767
Maligondanahalli village. The mere discrepancy in the
village name, where it is mentioned as Ramohalli instead
of Maligondanahalli, does not in itself constitute sufficient
grounds to determine the factual dispute regarding the
rightful ownership in mutation proceedings. Therefore,
considering that the ancestors of private respondents 4 to
8 had acted upon the sale deed and that their ownership
was consistently reflected in the revenue records for a
considerable number of years, this Court opines that the
petitioners must institute a comprehensive civil suit to
seek appropriate remedies.
11. During the course of arguments, the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners candidly conceded
and acknowledged the alienation of 3 acres of land in favor
of R.B. Venkataraju, through whom private respondents
10 to 13 are tracing their title. Given this express
acknowledgment, the ownership rights of private
respondents 10 to 13 over the said extent of 3 acres
remain undisputed. However, the primary contention of
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5767
the petitioners revolves around the remaining 3.3 acres,
which they assert was erroneously transferred by M.S.
Krishnamurthy on the mistaken premise that it formed
part of Survey No. 91 in Ramohalli village rather than
Maligondanahalli village. In this context, this Court finds it
imperative to emphasize that the resolution of such factual
disputes concerning property ownership, boundary
demarcation, and the legal validity of transactions falls
squarely within the jurisdiction of a civil Court. Mutation
proceedings are summary in nature and do not provide the
appropriate forum for adjudicating such complex and
contested matters.
12. In light of these crucial aspects, this Court
firmly concurs with the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, which directed the petitioners to seek
appropriate remedies before a competent civil Court. The
reasoning adopted by the Deputy Commissioner aligns
with a well-established line of judicial precedents rendered
by this Court in a series of judgments. The mere existence
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5767
of a discrepancy in the village name as recorded in the
sale deed, by itself, does not vest the petitioners with an
automatic right to have their names mutated in the
revenue records. Such a contention would require
extensive legal scrutiny and factual determination, which
are beyond the scope of mutation proceedings. Therefore,
the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and
upheld by this Court do not in any manner preclude or
hinder the petitioners from working out their remedies by
instituting appropriate civil proceedings. They are at
liberty to file a suit before the competent civil Court and
seek a declaration of their rights in the manner prescribed
by law.
13. With these observations, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) However, liberty is reserved to
petitioners to avail the remedy in the manner
known to law.
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:5767
(iii) All contentions are left open.
(iv) Any observations made by this Court
shall be confined to the lis that is raised
before this Court. Any observations made by
this Court shall not influence the civil Courts
in the event petitioners choose to avail the
remedy before the civil Court.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
ALB
