Karnataka High Court

Sri Papanna vs State Of Karnataka on 4 June, 2025

                                                 -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC:18807
                                                            WP No. 22952 of 2024


                      HC-KAR



                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                                DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                               BEFORE
                                THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 22952 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
                      BETWEEN:

                      SRI. PAPANNA,
                      S/O. LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
                      AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
                      R/AT. POOJARAMANAHALLI VILLAGE,
                      JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI,
                      HOSAKOTE TALUK,
                      BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
                      BENGALURU - 562 112.
                                                                    ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. RAKESH B. BHATT, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
SHARMA ANAND                REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
CHAYA
Location: HIGH              DEPT. OF REVENUE,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA                   M.S. BUILDING,
                            BENGALURU - 560 001.

                      2.    DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                            BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
                            KUNDANA HOBLI,
                            DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
                            BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
                            BENGALURU - 562 110.
                              -2-
                                      NC: 2025:KHC:18807
                                    WP No. 22952 of 2024


HC-KAR




3.   ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
     DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION,
     DODDABALLAPURA,
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

4.   TAHASILDAR,
     HOSKOTE TALUK OFFICE,
     HOSKOTE TOWN,
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.

5.   VENKATAGIRIYAPPA,
     S/O LATE CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
     R/AT POJARAMANAHALI VILLAGE,
     JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI,
     HOSKOTE TALUK,
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
     BENGALURU - 562 112.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
    SRI. S.S. ZULAPI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5)

      THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 30/07/2024 PASSED BY R2 IN REVISION PETITION
87/2024 (ANNX-A) AND ETC.,

      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM:    HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
                              -3-
                                          NC: 2025:KHC:18807
                                      WP No. 22952 of 2024


HC-KAR



                       ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, assailing

the order dated 30.07.2024 (Annexure-A) passed by the

respondent No.2.

2. The facts in nut shell for the purpose of

adjudication of this writ petition are that, the land bearing

Sy.No.26 (New Sy.No.33) of Poojaramanahalli Village,

Hoskote Taluk, measuring 5 acre 31 guntas of land is

granted to one Smt.Pillamma in GMF.No.110/532. It is

also stated in the writ petition that, after the death of

grantee- Smt.Pillamma, the petitioner and his sister, being

the legal heirs have sold 4 acre of land out of 5 acre 31

guntas, which was granted to their mother-Smt.Pillamma,

in favour of one Sri.Kempanna. It is also stated that, the

said purchaser-Sri.Kempanna, had got title in respect of

only 4 guntas of land as per the registered Sale Deed

dated 13.03.1967 and the remaining 1 acre 31 guntas is

continued with the legal heirs of grantee, However, the

said purchaser-Sri.Kempanna got mutated to an entire

NC: 2025:KHC:18807

HC-KAR

extent of 5 acre 31 guntas in his name, which is contrary

to law and therefore, the petitioner herein has filed appeal

before respondent No.3, challenging the mutation made in

favour of purchaser- Sri.Kempanna in respect of the entire

extent of 5 acre 31 guntas of land in RA (HO)137/2020.

The Respondent No.3 has passed an order dated

02.08.2021 (Annexure-C), by allowing the appeal and as

such, directed the revenue authorities to enter the name

of the purchaser-Sri.Kempanna only in respect of 4 acre

out of 5 acre 31 guntas of land. The said order of

respondent No.3 at Annexure-C was challenged in

RP.No.128/2021 and respondent No.2 herein by order

dated 24.05.2022, confirmed the order passed by

respondent No.3 in Regular Appeal(HO) No.137/2020

dated 02.08.2021. Thereafter, the mutation was made as

per Annexure-E to the writ petition. It is further state that,

respondent No.5 along with his brothers have challenged

the mutation made as per Annexure-E before this Court in

WP.No.13362/2022 and this Court by order dated

NC: 2025:KHC:18807

HC-KAR

04.12.2023 (Annexure-J) dismissed the writ petition filed

by the petitioner and reserved liberty to the petitioner to

work out their remedy before the competent authority.

Thereafter, the private respondents have filed

RP.No.87/2024 before respondent No.2 herein, challenging

the order dated 02.08.2021 in Appeal No.137/2020 and

respondent No.2 herein vide order dated 30.07.2024,

allowed the appeal and as such, set-aside the order dated

02.08.2021 passed in Appeal No.137/2020. Being

aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

3. I have heard Sri. Rakesh B.Bhatt, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Siddharth

Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri. S.S.Zulapi,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

4. It is contended by Sri. Rakesh B Bhat learned

counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the order passed

by respondent No.3 in Appeal No.137/2020 dated

02.08.2021 has been confirmed by respondent No.2 in

NC: 2025:KHC:18807

HC-KAR

RP.No.128/2021 as per Annexure-D and in that view the

matter, respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to pass one

more order as per Annexure-A to the writ petition and

accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

5. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner refers to the order dated 08.04.2024 in

WP.No.14741/2020 and contended that, the impugned

order passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-A is without

jurisdiction and accordingly, sought for interference of this

Court.

6. Per contra, Sri. S.S.Zulapi, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.5 has contended that, what

was challenged before respondent No.2 in R.P.No.87/2024

is the order dated 02.08.2021 in R.A.No.137/2020 and

also the order dated 01.04.2006 in RUC (A) No.77/2004-

05 and therefore, he submitted that, pursuant to the

liberty granted by this Court in WP.No.13362/2022

(Annexure-J), the impugned order at Annexure-A is

NC: 2025:KHC:18807

HC-KAR

passed and same is in accordance with law and

accordingly, sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate

Sri.Siddharth Baburao, appearing for respondent Nos.1 to

4, sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure-A.

8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the parties, it is not in dispute that the land to an extent of

5 acre 31 guntas has been granted in favour of the mother

of the petitioner. In the light of the submission made by

the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is the case

of the petitioner that, the land to an extent of 5 acre 31

guntas has been granted in favour of the mother of the

petitioner and out of which, 4 acres of the land has been

sold in favour of one Sri.Kempanna. In this regard, the

mutation has been made in respect of the entire extent of

the land i.e., 5 acre 31 guntas and same was challenged

before respondent No.3 in R.A.No.137/2020 (Annexure-C).

The respondent No.3 vide order dated 02.08.2021 allowed

the appeal and held that, out of 5 acre 31 guntas of land,

NC: 2025:KHC:18807

HC-KAR

the mother of the petitioner has sold an extent of 4 acre of

land and as such, interfered with the mutation entry made

in favour of respondent No.2, therein (son of mother of

the petitioner-Sri.Kempanna) and the same was

challenged by the private respondents in R.P.No.128/2021

as per Annexure-E. The respondent No.2 vide order dated

24.05.2022, has confirmed the order passed by

respondent No.2 at Annexure-C. It appears that after

confirmation of the order of respondent No.3 by

respondent No.2 at Annexure-D, the mutation has been

made as per Annexure-E to the writ petition. It is also

forthcoming from the writ papers that the private

respondents herein have challenged MR.No.T5/2021-22

dated 20.06.2022 and the said writ petition came to be

dismissed by this Court vide order dated 04.12.2023 in

WP.No.13362/2022 (Annexure-J). It is also forthcoming

from the Annexure-K, wherein, the private respondents

herein have filed one more revision petition under Section

136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act in R.P.No.87/2024

NC: 2025:KHC:18807

HC-KAR

challenging the order dated 02.08.2021 in

R.A.No.137/2020, which has already reached finality as

per the order dated 24.05.2022 in R.P.No.128/2021

(Annexure-D). The prayer made in R.P.No.87/2024 reads

as under:

"Wherefore, the appellants prays that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to call for the records from the respondent No.1 after hearing the parties and allow this appeal in the interest of justice and equity, and set aside the orders passed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 3rd respondent in RA (HO) 137/2020 dt:2.8.2021 in respect of old Sy.No.26 New Sy.No.33 measuring 1 acre 31 guntas, situated at Poojaramanahalli village, Jadigenahalli Hobli, Hosakote Taluk, Bangalore Rural district."

(Emphasis Supplied)

9. Taking into consideration that the private

respondents herein have challenged the order dated

02.08.2021 in R.A.No.137/2020 which has already

reached finality as per Annexure-D in R.P.No.87/2024, I

am of the view that, respondent No.2 herein has no

jurisdiction to pass one more order, contrary to the order

passed at Annexure-D to the writ petition. In this regard,

it is relevant to extract paragraph No.10 in

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18807

HC-KAR

WP.No.14741/2020 disposed of on 08.04.2024, which

reads as under:

"10. Having regard to the said judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has held that it is clear that the quasi judicial authorities are not permitted to review their orders unless such powers are expressly vested in them by the statute. The provision in Section 25 only enables the revenue authorities to invoke the inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of the revenue court. It was therefore held that the provisions contained in Sections 24 or 25 do not expressly provide for review of an order passed by the revenue authorities."

10. Following the declaration of law made by this

Court and also it is a well settled principal in law that, the

quasi-judicial authorities have no authority under law to

review their orders unless such powers are expressly

conferred by statue, I am of the view that, respondent

No.2 herein has no jurisdiction to pass one more order

against the order passed by respondent No.2 in

R.A.No.137/2020, which is contrary to the earlier order

passed at Annexure-D in R.P.No.128/2021.

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:18807

HC-KAR