Karnataka High Court
Sri Kempahanumaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 19 February, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:7403
WP No. 16499 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.16499 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.KEMPAHANUMAIAH
S/O LATE DODDAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
2. SRI.S.D.LENKAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
S/O LATE DODDAHANUMAIAH
3. SRI.LENKAIAH
S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
4. SRI.RAJANNA
S/O LATE CHIKKAHANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
Digitally signed by
CHAITHRA A
Location: HIGH 5. SRI.HARISH
COURT OF S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH
KARNATKA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
6. SRI.ANIL KUMAR
S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
7. SRI.PRADEEPA
S/O LATE SANJEEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:7403
WP No. 16499 of 2024
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KADAMATHIKERE VILLA
KASABA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKUR - 572 130
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.NAGESH S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
TUMKURU DISTRICT
TUMKURU - 572 101
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TUMKURU DISTRICT
TUMKURU - 572 101
4. THE THASILDAR
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572 101
5. SMT.RANGAMMA
AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS
W/O LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH
6. SMT.GANGALAKSHMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
D/O LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH
R/A GAVIMATA
RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6
ARE RESIDING AT
GAVIMATA
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:7403
WP No. 16499 of 2024
KASABA HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK
TUMKURU DISTRICT - 572101
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.4;
SRI.T.A.KARUMBAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R.5 AND R.6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM R-2 TO 4 IN RESPECT OF IMPUGNED ORDER
PASSED BY R-2 ON 18.11.2022 IN R.P NO.237/2022 (ANNEXURE-A)
AND IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 15.03.2023 PASSED BY R-3 IN RA
NO.1503/2022 (ANNEXURE-B) AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
01.02.2024 PASSED BY R-4 IN RRT(DIS).01/2023-24 (ANNEXURE-C)
IN RESPECT OF LAND IN SY NO.97 MEASURING 4.00 ACRES
SITUATED AT KADUMATHIKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT 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
This captioned writ petition is filed assailing the
impugned order dated 18.11.2022 passed by respondent
No.2 - Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-A, the order
dated 15.03.2023 passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant
Commissioner as per Annexure-B and the order dated
NC: 2025:KHC:7403
01.02.2024 passed by respondent No.4 - Tahasildar as per
Annexure-C restoring the name of one Sanjeevaiah.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and 6 and
learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
3. The petitioners have asserted that the lands in
question are their ancestral properties. To substantiate
their claim, they presented revenue entries dating back to
1968. Upon examining the RTCs, as evidenced in
Annexure-F series, it becomes clear that the lands were
recorded in the names of Doddahanumaiah and
Chikkahanumaiah. The RTC reflects Doddahanumaiah
holding 1 acre and 32 guntas, while the widow of
Chikkahanumaiah, Siddamma, held 1 acre and 23 guntas.
4. Annexure-G consists of an unregistered partition
deed executed in 1982 within Doddahanumaiah's family.
Similarly, another inter-se partition deed involving
Chikkahanumaiah's family is presented at Annexure-J.
NC: 2025:KHC:7403
Despite being unregistered, the Revenue Authorities
recognized these partitions and updated the mutations
accordingly, reflecting the names of the parties in the
RTC. Further, the legal heirs of Chikkahanumaiah, namely
Siddamma and her children, sold 22 guntas of land to
petitioner No. 2 through a registered sale deed dated
07.05.2007.
5. The private respondents contested the petitioners'
title by filing a comprehensive suit in O.S.No.116/2008,
seeking a declaration of absolute ownership and recovery
of possession. They also challenged the validity of the sale
deed dated 07.05.2007, alleging it was void and not
binding on them. The competent Civil Court dismissed this
suit by judgment and decree dated 28.06.2018. In
parallel, the petitioners filed four independent suits for
injunction simplicitor, all of which were decreed in their
favor, restraining respondent Nos. 5 and 6 from interfering
with their peaceful possession.
NC: 2025:KHC:7403
6. Despite these outcomes, respondent Nos.5 and 6,
without disclosing the dismissed suit, approached
respondent No. 2 - Deputy Commissioner and initiated
proceedings without impleading the petitioners, as
evidenced by Annexure-A. The Deputy Commissioner,
without due verification of records or hearing from all
concerned parties, entertained the revision under Section
136(3) of the KLR Act and allowed the petition and
remanded the matter to respondent No. 3 - Assistant
Commissioner.
7. Following the remand, the Assistant
Commissioner, again disregarding the necessity of hearing
the contesting private parties, allowed the appeal and
referred the matter to respondent No. 4 - Tahasildar.
Subsequently, the Tahasildar commenced an enquiry
without ensuring the participation of the petitioners, in
clear violation of due process.
8. Upon learning about the ongoing proceedings, the
petitioners sought to implead themselves and submitted
NC: 2025:KHC:7403
relevant records, as evidenced by Annexure-Q.1. Despite
being informed about the demise of the petitioners'
ancestors, the Tahasildar, through an impugned order at
Annexure-C dated 05.12.2023, directed the restoration of
Sanjeevaiah's name on the ground that his name
appeared in the RTC prior to 1968. This decision was made
without due regard for the Civil Court's judgment and
seems influenced by extraneous considerations, raising
questions about the fairness and integrity of the
proceedings.
9. The handling of this case by respondent Nos. 2, 3,
and 4 is deeply concerning. The Deputy Commissioner,
Assistant Commissioner, and Tahasildar acted without
adhering to procedural mandates, placing undue burdens
on the constitutional courts, which are forced to address
these frivolous and unwarranted decisions under Sections
128 and 129 of the KLR Act.
10. Considering that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 lost
the civil suit and failed to challenge the mutation
NC: 2025:KHC:7403
proceedings until now, they have lost the locus standi to
contest the petitioners' lawful possession. The Tahasildar's
order to restore Sanjeevaiah's name, based on outdated
RTC records, appears to be an attempt to circumvent the
judgment rendered in O.S.No.116/2008.
11. This Court firmly holds that the actions of
respondent No. 4 - Tahasildar lack any legal basis and
directly contravene the judgment of the competent Civil
Court. The restoration of Sanjeevaiah's name, which
reflects outdated records prior to 1969, disregards
subsequent partitions, alienations, and the lawful
mutations recorded over time. The order violates the
procedural requirements set forth under Sections 128 and
129 of the KLR Act and appears to be influenced by
extraneous factors. This is a fit case for initiating a
departmental enquiry against the Tahasildar. The Principal
Secretary, Revenue Department, should be directed to
initiate proceedings and report compliance to the Registry
of this Court. The learned AGA must ensure a copy of this
NC: 2025:KHC:7403
order is forwarded to the Principal Secretary for necessary
action.
12. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds
to pass the following;
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 18.11.2022
passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy
Commissioner in R.P.No.237/2022 as per
Annexure-A, the order dated 15.03.2023 passed
by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner in
R.A.No.1503/2022 as per Annexure-B and the
order dated 01.02.2024 passed by respondent
No.4 - Tahasildar in RRT(Dis).01/2023-24 as per
Annexure-C are set-aside.
(iii) Respondent No.4 - Tahasildar is hereby
directed to restore the names as they existed
prior to passing of the order at Annexure-C.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:7403
(iv) This exercise shall be accomplished
within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt of order copy.
(v) Learned AGA shall forthwith forward copy
of this Order to the Principal Secretary, Revenue
Department to enable him to contemplate further
course of action against respondent No.4 -
Tahasildar.
(vi) Learned AGA shall ensure that the
compliance report is furnished before the
Registry within a period of eight months from the
date of receipt of order copy.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
