Karnataka High Court
Smt Kempamma vs State Of Karnataka on 11 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:5934
WP No. 31036 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.31036 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.KEMPAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS.
1(A) SRI.MUNIVENKATAPPA
S/O KEMPAMMA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
2. SMT.DODDACHINNAMMA
D/O LATE NANJAPPA
W/O RAMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
3. SMT.GULLA CHINNAMMA
D/O LATE NANJAPPA
W/O MARAPPA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
by AL BHAGYA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3 ARE
KARNATKA RESIDING AT
YAMARE VILLAGE
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
4. SRI.NARAYANAPPA
S/O LATE LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:5934
WP No. 31036 of 2019
5. SMT.VEENA
W/O LATE NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
6. SRI.SATHISH
S/O LATE LINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS.3 TO 6 ARE
RESIDING AT
CHAMBENAHALLI VILLAGE
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 106
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.D.R.RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.M.SHIVAPRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR P.6 AND LRS
OF DECEASED P.1;
SRI.VINOD C S, ADVOCATE FOR P.1(A), P4, P5, P6)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
BY ITS SECRETARY
M.S.BUILDING
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN
K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU - 560009
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION
KANDAYA BHAVANA
K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU - 560009
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:5934
WP No. 31036 of 2019
4. THE THASILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106
5. SRI.MUNIYELAGHAIAH
S/O LATE ALLALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
6. SRI.YELLAPPA
S/O LATE ALLALAPPA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
CHAMBANAHALLI VILLAGE
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT - 562 125
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MANJUNATHA K, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.5;
SRI.M.J.ALVA, ADVOCATE FOR R.6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 12TH MARCH 2019, PASSED BY THE R-2, DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN
REVISION PETITION NO.166/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
In the captioned writ petition, the petitioners
herein, who are claiming to be the Class-I heirs of one
NC: 2025:KHC:5934
Nanjappa, are aggrieved by the change of katha effected
by the Revenue Authorities based on an alleged Will
executed by the said Nanjappa in favour of the father of
respondent Nos.5 and 6 namely Allalappa.
2. An appeal is filed by the petitioners herein
before respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner under
Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner referring to the
properties covered under the Will has come to the
conclusion that the petitioners are not entitled to get their
names mutated as the petition lands are not reflected in
the said Will. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and
direction was issued by respondent No.3 - Assistant
Commissioner to mutate the petitioners' names. This order
is reversed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner,
which is now challenged by the legal heirs of the Testator.
NC: 2025:KHC:5934
3. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for
respondent Nos.5 and 6. Perused the records.
4. In the present case, the Legatee, based on the
Will, had his name mutated as early as 1993-94, as
evidenced by the mutation entry in Annexure-C. Although
the Full Bench judgment in C.N. NAGENDRA SINGH VS.
THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU
DISTRICT & OTHERS1 establishes that Revenue
Authorities should not act upon Wills while exercising their
powers under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, this principle is not applicable in the present
case. The records clearly indicate that the father of
respondent Nos.5 and 6, who claimed to be the Legatee,
had already secured mutation based on the Will in 1993-
94, and these entries have since remained in the RTC
records.
ILR 2002 KAR 2750
NC: 2025:KHC:5934
5. Furthermore, it is evident from the records that
respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed a comprehensive suit in
O.S.No.860/2018, seeking a declaration of their rights
based on the Will. The petitioners express concerns that
the legal heirs of the original Legatee may interfere with
the property. Given that the legal heirs have already
instituted a suit asserting their title, this Court finds that
at this stage, the mutation of the Legatee's name cannot
be set aside under Sections 136(2) and 136(3) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Deputy Commissioner
(respondent No.2) erred in ordering restoration,
particularly when the legal heirs' claim is already under
judicial scrutiny. However, this Court acknowledges the
petitioners' concerns and, to ensure transparency, directs
the jurisdictional Tahsildar (respondent No.4) to record the
pendency of O.S.No.860/2018 in the land records.
6. The existing RTC entries for the properties in
question shall remain subject to the outcome of the
pending suit. The petitioners retain the right to
NC: 2025:KHC:5934
demonstrate before the Civil Court that the disputed lands
are not covered under the Will. To safeguard the interests
of all parties and prevent the creation of third-party rights,
this Court while refraining from interfering with the Deputy
Commissioner's order deems it necessary to issue
directions ensuring that both parties' rights are preserved
until the suit is adjudicated on its merits.
With these above observations, the writ petition
stands disposed off.
However, respondent No.4 is hereby directed to
forthwith reflect pendency of the suit in O.S.No.860/2018
in the other rights column.
This exercise shall be accomplished within a
period of five weeks from the date of receipt of order copy.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
