Karnataka High Court
Sri. Ullas Kotian Yane Ullas. K. V vs Government Of Karnataka on 9 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:792
WP No. 241 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. ULLAS KOTIAN YANE ULLAS K. V,
S/O THE LATE VITTAL KUKYAN,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT PALLATHARU HOUSE,
KODIMBADY VILLAGE AND POST,
PUTTUR TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT - 574 325.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JANARDHANA G, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally MINISTRY OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
signed by DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
KAVYA R BENGALURU - 560 001,
Location: REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY.
High Court
of Karnataka
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
MANGALURU - 575 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
ADALITHA SOUDHA,
PUTTUR SUB DIVISION,
PUTTUR - 574 201, DAKSHINA KANNADA.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:792
WP No. 241 of 2025
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
UPPINANGADY HOBLI,
PUTTUR TALUK - 574 241,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
5. SRI. K.V. PURUSHOTHAMA KUKYAN,
S/O THE LATE VITTAL KUKYAN,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT "SRIPATTARABHIMA",
FLAT NO.308, VISHWAS ANMOL,
VYASANAGARA, KPT,
BEJAI POST, MANGALORE - 575 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA , AGA FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
OF THE R-2 DATED 06.12.2024 PASSED IN RAP NO. 146/2023
UNDER ANNX-G TO THE WRIT PETITION 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
The captioned petition is filed assailing the order of
respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, as per Annexure-
G, who has reversed the order passed by respondent
No.3-Assistant Commissioner and has directed the
NC: 2025:KHC:792
Tahsildar to restore the name of the original owner,
namely, Kamalamma, who is none other than the mother
of the petitioner and respondent No.5.
2. Facts leading to the case are as under:
The subject matter of the petition is agricultural land
measuring 1 acre 85 guntas in Sy.No.27/RS/5 and 0.5
acres in Sy.No.27/RS/3, both situated at Kodimbady
village. A closer scrutiny of the writ averments clearly
reveals that there is no dispute that these two lands were
admittedly owned by the mother of the petitioner and
respondent No.5, namely, Kamalamma, who acquired
these properties under akrama-sakrama scheme on 21-
04-1999. On the death of the said Kamalamma, the
petitioner, based on a will dated 05-11-2019, got his name
mutated. Respondent No.5, who is none other than the
brother of the petitioner herein, feeling aggrieved by the
mutation, questioned the same before the Assistant
Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the
appeal on the premise that respondent No.5 has already
NC: 2025:KHC:792
approached the civil court by filing a partition suit. The
Deputy Commissioner, however, has reversed the order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner and has directed to
restore the name of the original owner, Kamalamma,
pending consideration of the suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner citing the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Suraj
Bhan and others vs. Financial Commissioner and
others reported in (2007) 6 SCC 186 and also
judgment rendered by the division bench in
W.A.No.4429/2011, tried to persuade this Court that the
Deputy Commissioner erred in reversing the order of the
Assistant Commissioner. This Court is not inclined to
accede to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel
for the petitioner. This Court has given its anxious
consideration to the law laid down by the Apex Court in
the judgment cited supra. I have also given my anxious
NC: 2025:KHC:792
consideration to the judgment rendered by the division
bench in an unreported judgment in W.A.No.4429/2011.
4. The core question that draws the attention of
this Court is as to whether the petitioner, who is
admittedly the sibling of respondent No.5, can get his
name mutated to the revenue records based on an alleged
will executed by his mother, Kamalamma. The full bench
of this Court in the case of C.N.Nagendra Singh vs.
Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, reported
in ILR 2002 KAR 2750, while answering the reference,
has held that the revenue courts are prevented from
recording the statements of the parties and therefore, the
question of establishing the genuineness of the will cannot
be ventured into in a mutation proceeding and has to be
left to the discretion of the competent civil court. Even if
respondent No.5 has filed a suit in partition, that in itself
cannot constitute a ground to retain the name of the
NC: 2025:KHC:792
petitioner on the strength of the will alleged to have been
executed by his mother, Kamalamma.
5. Since relations are not in dispute and the
petitioner and respondent No.5 are tracing inheritance
rights through their mother, it becomes more relevant and
significant in retaining the mother's name till rights of the
parties are fully adjudicated in the pending partition suit.
The petitioner is asserting exclusive title based on a will
and has to prove the will in the manner known to law.
Unless the petitioner is able to prove the genuineness of
the will, adhering to strict compliance under Section 63 of
the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Section 68 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the petitioner does not
acquire right as contemplated under Section 128 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, to get his name
mutated based on a will. Will either be registered or not
registered does not create a right in favour of legatees.
The legatee, who claims to be a beneficiary under the will,
NC: 2025:KHC:792
has to substantiate it and prove it. Unless respondent No.5
is non-suited in a partition suit, the petitioner could not
have got his name mutated to the revenue records. These
significant details are rightly adverted to by respondent
No.2-Deputy Commissioner.
6. The order of respondent No.3-Assistant
Commissioner, in dismissing the appeal on the premises
that respondent No.5 has already approached the civil
court does not align with the principles laid down by the
full bench of this Court in the judgment cited supra and
also runs contrary to the mandate prescribed under
Section 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964. In that view of the matter, this Court is not inclined
to grant any indulgence. The order passed by respondent
No.2-Deputy Commissioner, is in accordance with law.
Therefore, writ petition is devoid of merits and liable to be
dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:792
Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and
stands dismissed.
All contentions are kept open.
This order will not be an impediment for the
petitioner herein to lead cogent evidence and substantiate
the genuineness of the will in the pending suit.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
