Karnataka High Court
Smt Puttamma vs State Of Karnataka on 15 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:1387
WP No. 42 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.42 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
OCC: HOUSE HOLD WORK
AGRICULTURIST
R/AT NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
ANEKERE POST
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116
2. SRI.SHIVALINGEGOWDA
S/O LATE KARIGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
Digitally signed by OCC: AGRICULTURIST
AL BHAGYA R/AT NAGASAMUDRA VILLAGE
Location: High KASABA HOBLI
Court of Karnataka
ANEKERE POST
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:1387
WP No. 42 of 2025
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN-573116
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
HASSAN SUB DIVISION
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN-573116
4. THE TAHASILDHAR
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN-573116
5. SMT.LAKKAMMA
W/O LATE NINGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
R/AT NAGASAMUNDRA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
HASSAN DISTRICT-573 116
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.4;
SRI.VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R.5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OF
IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNX-B BEARING
NO.R.P.34/2014-15 DATED 29.07.2021 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:1387
WP No. 42 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
In the captioned writ petition, the petitioners are
assailing the orders of respondent No.3 - Assistant
Commissioner, who has restored the name of
respondent No.5 based on the judgment and decree
rendered in O.S.No.448/2012 and confirmed by the
Appellate Court in R.A.No.15/2021.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel appearing for private respondent No.5
and learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1
to 4.
3. The short point that needs consideration at
the hands o this Court is:
Whether petitioners are entitled for any
indulgence, at this juncture, having suffered
two concurrent decrees at the hands of the
competent Civil Courts merely because
NC: 2025:KHC:1387
second appeal is filed by the petitioners in
RSA No.184/2024?
My answer is emphatically no.
4. Respondent No.5's name was reflected in the
RTC and respondent No.5 asserts that the petition
property is her ancestral property.
5. The petitioners herein filed an appeal before
respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner, who has
entertained an appeal under Section 136(2) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act and ordered to mutate
the name of the petitioners.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the order of respondent
No.3 - Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.5 filed
a suit in O.S.No.448/2012 seeking relief of declaration
and consequential relief of injunction. The Court
decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated
05.03.2021. Assailing the judgment and decree of the
NC: 2025:KHC:1387
Trial Court, the petitioners herein preferred an appeal
in R.A.No.15/2021. The Appellate Court has dismissed
the appeal thereby affirmed the decree passed in
O.S.No.448/2012.
7. Based on the judgments and decrees rendered
in O.S.No.448/2012 and R.A.No.15/2021, respondent
No.5 submitted a varadi to respondent No.2 - Deputy
Commissioner, annexing copies of these judgments.
Respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, upon taking
cognizance of the judgments passed by the competent
Civil Courts, which unequivocally declared respondent
No.5 as the absolute owner in possession of the
petition property, exercised the statutory power
vested under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
Recognizing the binding nature of the Civil Court
decrees, respondent No.2 proceeded to allow the
revision petition filed by respondent No.5, thereby
setting aside the order of respondent No.3 - Assistant
NC: 2025:KHC:1387
Commissioner. Consequently, a direction was issued
to restore the name of respondent No.5 in the RTC.
8. It is imperative that revenue authorities, as
custodians of land records, are duty-bound to effect
necessary changes in land records to reflect the rights
determined by competent Civil Courts. When a Civil
Court decree adjudicates ownership and possession
conclusively, it attains primacy and must be
implemented by the revenue authorities without
hesitation. Failure to do so would not only contravene
the law but also undermine the sanctity of judicial
pronouncements. In this context, the actions of
respondent No.2 in recognizing and acting upon the
decrees of the Civil Courts reflect adherence to the
principles of legal finality and procedural propriety.
Such steps ensure that the land records maintained
under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act align with the
judicially determined rights of parties.
NC: 2025:KHC:1387
9. Having noticed these significant details, this
Court is of the view that respondent No.5 is entitled to
seek restoration of her name in the RTC based on the
judgments rendered by the Civil Courts. There shall be
no impediment for the petitioners to seek restoration
of their names subject to outcome of the pending
second appeal in RSA No.184/2024.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
NBM
