Karnataka High Court
Sri. Shivaswamy vs The Deputy Commissioner on 13 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6589
WP No. 708 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 708 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. SHIVASWAMY,
S/O MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
2. SRI. B.S. ANANDA,
S/O SHIVASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
BOTH ARE RESIDING AT
BALLEKERE VILLAGE, ARKERI HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA - 571 415.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ROOPESHA B, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by AND:
KAVYA R
Location: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
High Court of
Karnataka MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571 401.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
PANDAVAPUR SUB DIVISION,
PANDAVAPUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 434.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 438.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6589
WP No. 708 of 2025
4. SMT. K.C. RADHA,
W/O KUMAR,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
R/AT DODDAPALYADHA DODDI,
ARKERI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 415.
5. SRI. RAMESH,
S/O LATE CHANNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT DODDAPALYA VILLAGE,
ARKERI HOBLI,
SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 807.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. N. MAHALINGA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
VIDE ORDER 10.02.2025, NOTICE TO R5 IS HELD
SUFFICIENT)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) CALL FOR THE
RECORDS RELATING TO CASE NO. R.MISC(SRI).19/2024 FROM
THE FILE OF THE R2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA VIDE ANN-N
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
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:6589
WP No. 708 of 2025
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed assailing the order of respondent
No.2-Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-N.
Consequently, a mandamus is sought to direct
respondents No.2 and 3 to effect katha in terms of
directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.230/2021.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1
to 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.
Perused the records.
3. The present case presents a highly unfortunate
state of affairs, reflecting a clear disregard for judicial
directives. The petitioners have challenged the mutation
recorded in favor of respondent No.5, which was
effectuated on the basis of a sale deed executed by
respondent No.4. Despite this challenge, the Assistant
Commissioner, acting in direct violation of the explicit
directions issued by this Court, has not only dismissed the
NC: 2025:KHC:6589
petitioners' appeal but has also relegated them to seek
redressal in the pending civil suit filed by respondent No.4
in O.S.No.260/2022.
4. Before proceeding further into the merits of the
case, it is essential to revisit the observations made by
this Court in W.P.No.230/2021, as referenced in
Annexure-J. The significance of these observations cannot
be understated, as they form the crux of the judicial
reasoning that ought to have guided the Assistant
Commissioner's decision. More specifically, paragraphs 14
to 21 of the said judgment are of particular relevance.
5. The failure of the Assistant Commissioner to
adhere to these judicial observations raises serious
concerns about administrative compliance with judicial
orders. By summarily dismissing the petitioners' appeal
and directing them to pursue relief in the pending suit, the
Assistant Commissioner has, in effect, disregarded the
settled legal position. This Court, therefore, finds it
imperative to scrutinize the matter in light of the
NC: 2025:KHC:6589
aforementioned observations in W.P.No.230/2021,
ensuring that judicial precedents are duly followed and
justice is not rendered illusory by administrative oversight
or indifference.Relevant portion is extracted as under;
14. In the statement of objections filed by respondent
No.4 to the writ petition, it is stated as follows:
9. The 4th respondent herein disputes the
execution of the said sale deed dated 29.06.1970
in favour of Swamy Gowda. The extent
mentioned in the sale deed dated 29.06.1970 is
not in consonance with the extent allotted to
Boralinge Gowda under the registered partition
deed dated 25.04.1962. Hence the allegation
made by the petitioners that Boralinge Gowda
had sold the property in favour of the 1st
petitioner under the sale deed dated 29.06.1970
is incorrect."
15. A reading of the said objections indicates that
respondent No.4 is disputing the execution of the sale
deed. It is not the case of respondent No.4 that the sale
deed does not pertain to Sy.No.248/4 or that no such sale
deed was executed..
16. In my view, since there is a registered sale deed
executed by Boralingegowda-the father-in-law of
respondent No.4 in favour of petitioner No.1, the
respondent No.4 cannot object the entry of the petitioners
name in the revenue records unless the said sale deed is
declared to be illegal.
17. It is also to be noticed here that the father-in-law of
respondent No.4 i.e., Boralingegowda did not challenge
the revenue entry that had been made in favour of
Chikkahanumegowda in whose favour he had created an
Usufructuary Mortgage. It is also not in dispute that the
name of Boralingegowda was never entered in the
revenue records from 1967. In that view of the matter,
the appeal filed by respondent No.4 laying a claim over
NC: 2025:KHC:6589
Sy.No.248/4 on the ground of succession from
Boralingegowda would not arise.
18. It would also be pertinent to state here that apart
from respondent No.4, it is also admitted that
Boralingegowda had two more sons. In the light of this
fact, respondent No.4 could not obviously seek for
mutation of her name exclusively on the ground that she
had succeeded to the property on the basis of succession
from Boralingegowda.
19. I am therefore of the view that the orders of the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner
cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set
aside.
20. The order of the Tahasildar shall stand restored and
the revenue entries shall reflect the name of petitioner
No.1 on the basis of the sale deed dated 29.06.1970 and
thereafter, in the name of petitioner No.2 on the basis of
the registered release deed dated 18.12.2019.
21. It is open for respondent No.4 to approach the Civil
Court and seek for a declaratory decree in respect of
Sy.No.248/4 and if respondent No.4 were to obtain an
appropriate declaratory decree, declaring her to be the
owner, the revenue entries would abide by such a decree.
6. Upon a thorough examination of the order
passed by the coordinate bench, it becomes evident that
this Court had unequivocally refused to grant any relief to
respondent No.4. This Court firmly held that since a
registered sale deed had been executed by the father-in-
law of respondent No.4 in favor of petitioner No.1,
respondent No.4 had no legal standing to challenge the
mutation proceedings. Consequently, the Court directed
NC: 2025:KHC:6589
the Tahsildar to reinstate the revenue entries in
accordance with the sale deed dated 29.06.1970, ensuring
that petitioner No.1's name was duly recorded.
Furthermore, the Court explicitly directed that, following
the release deed dated 18.12.2019, the mutation should
reflect the name of petitioner No.2. These directions were
clear and left no room for deviation, thereby conclusively
settling the issue in favor of the petitioners.
7. Despite the adverse order passed by this Court,
respondent No.4, in collusion with her brother, sought to
circumvent the judicial determination by executing a fresh
sale deed dated 26.12.2023, which is evidenced at
Annexure-L. Acting upon this newly created sale deed,
respondent No.4-Tahsildar proceeded to mutate the name
of respondent No.5 in the revenue records, disregarding
the binding directions previously issued by this Court.
Aggrieved by this unauthorized and unlawful mutation, the
petitioners filed an appeal before respondent No.2-
Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the
NC: 2025:KHC:6589
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, seeking redressal.
However, instead of adhering to the judicial directives set
forth in W.P.No.230/2021, respondent No.2-Assistant
Commissioner, in blatant violation of this Court's orders,
dismissed the appeal and directed the petitioners to work
out their remedy in a pending suit. This Court, taking
serious note of this misconduct, was compelled to summon
the presence of the Assistant Commissioner during the last
hearing.
8. In an attempt to justify his actions, respondent
No.2-Assistant Commissioner contended that he was
entirely unaware of the order passed by the coordinate
bench in W.P.No.230/2021. However, upon scrutiny of the
appeal memo filed by the petitioners, this Court found that
the judgment rendered in W.P.No.230/2021 had been
expressly pleaded in the appeal before the Assistant
Commissioner. This clearly establishes that respondent
No.2-Assistant Commissioner, despite being made fully
aware of the previous order, chose to disregard it and
NC: 2025:KHC:6589
proceeded to pass an order in complete defiance of judicial
authority. Such conduct not only undermines the sanctity
of the judicial process but also demonstrates a willful
disregard for the directions issued by this Court. In view of
this, this Court is of the firm opinion that the order passed
by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, as evidenced
in Annexure-K, cannot be sustained and is liable to be
quashed. Furthermore, given the serious nature of the
violation, this Court deems it necessary to bring this
matter to the attention of the appropriate superior
authority to initiate a departmental inquiry against
respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, who has
audaciously disregarded the binding directions of this
Court.
9. At this stage, the learned High Court
Government Pleader (HCGP) has earnestly attempted to
persuade this Court to exercise leniency and merely issue
a warning to the concerned officer. The learned HCGP has
further assured this Court that respondent Nos.2 and 3 will
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6589
henceforth strictly comply with any directions issued by
constitutional courts and will ensure that there is no
further indulgence in violating judicial orders. While this
assurance is noted, the gravity of the present case
necessitates stringent measures to prevent a recurrence of
such blatant disregard for judicial directives. Therefore,
this Court finds it imperative to set aside the order passed
by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner and direct the
appropriate authorities to consider necessary disciplinary
action against the erring officer.
10. This Court adopting a lenient view passes the
following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed;
ii. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2-
Assistant Commissioner, vide Annexure-K and
the impugned mutations are hereby quashed;
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6589
iii. Respondent No.3-Tahasildar, is hereby directed
to forthwith mutate the petitioners name to the
petition land in the RTC;
iv. The change of katha in favour of petitioners shall
be subject to the outcome of pending suit in
O.S.No.260/2022.
v. Respondent no 3 shall mutate petitioner name to
RTC within 4 weeks .
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
