Karnataka High Court
Smt Gowramma vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46220-DB
WA No. 1720 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1720 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O. LATE SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
2. SRI ANJANAPPA
S/O. LATE SUBBANNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
3. SRI. MUNE GOWDA
Digitally S/O. LATE SUBBANNA
signed by AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
SUMATHY
KANNAN
Location: ALL ARE RESIDING AT
High Court of
Karnataka KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 562 110
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI R.S. RAVI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI ROOPESHA B., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46220-DB
WA No. 1720 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
REP. BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
URBAN DISTRICT
OFFICE SITUATED AT URBAN D.C.OFFICE
BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVAN
K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION
OFFICE SITUATED AT
KANDYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
K.R.PURAM.
BENGALURU - 560 036
5. SMT. RATHNAMMA
W/O LATE NARASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT LAGUMENAHALLI VILLAGE
BIDRARAHALLI HOBLI
BENGALURU EAST TALUK - 560 049
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-1 TO 4 &
SRI VIVEK S. REDDY, SENIOR ADVOCATE
SMT. POONAM N., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46220-DB
WA No. 1720 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2025
PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION
No.429/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) & ETC.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. Issue notice.
2. Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned Additional Government
Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents.
3. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.No.2/2025, the
same is allowed.
4. The appellants have filed the present appeal, impugning an
order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.429 of 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR). The said writ petition was
NC: 2025:KHC:46220-DB
HC-KAR
preferred by respondent No.5, inter alia praying that directions be
issued to respondent No.4 (Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk), to
consider the representation dated 13.11.2019 and to continue the
name of the writ petitioner in the RTC by implementing the orders
passed by respondent No.3 (The Assistant Commissioner), in
respect of land measuring 1 acre 22 guntas falling in Survey No.22,
Lagumenahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk
['subject land']. The writ petitioner's grievance was confined to the
revenue records being altered to reflect the name of "Sarakari
Gunduthopu" in the RTC records with respect to the subject land.
The writ petitioner claims that her name was entered in the revenue
records pursuant to the mutation order bearing No.M.R.3/1978-79.
However, some time in 1988-89, her name was removed from the
revenue records and the name of "Sarakari Gunduthopu" was
entered in the RTC.
5. Apparently, this is premised on the basis that the subject
land had been acquired and therefore is vested with the
Government. It is to be noted that the writ petitioner had prior to
filing the present writ petition, filed a writ petition being
W.P.No.48540/2014, which was disposed of by an order dated
NC: 2025:KHC:46220-DB
HC-KAR
25.11.2014, with liberty to the writ petitioner to agitate her
grievance before the statutory authority. Pursuant to the liberty
granted, the writ petitioner had filed an appeal before the Assistant
Commissioner (Respondent No.3) being R.A (BE) No. 130 of 2018,
seeking restoration of the mutation entry in the RTC. The said
appeal was allowed in terms of an order dated 23.10.2019 directing
the name of the writ petitioner to be restored in the RTC.
6. In the given circumstances, the only question that fell for
consideration of the learned Single Judge was, whether the name
of the writ petitioner could be removed from the RTC and be
replaced by "Sarakari Gunduthopu" without the writ petitioner being
served any notice and without any order. The learned Single Judge
concluded that the grant in favour of the writ petitioner was never
cancelled in a manner known to law and therefore, the steps taken
by the revenue authorities to remove the name of the writ petitioner
and replace the same with the words "Sarakari Gunduthopu" in the
revenue records, was wholly unjustified.
7. The learned Single Judge also noted that the Tahsildar had
filed a revision petition challenging the order dated 23.10.2019
NC: 2025:KHC:46220-DB
HC-KAR
passed by the Assistant Commissioner allowing the appeal
preferred by the writ petitioner. However, the Court concluded that
the revision petition filed by the Tahsildar before the Special
Deputy Commissioner, would be without any authority of law. The
learned Single Judge was persuaded to make the said
observations on the assumption that it was not disputed that the
grant made in favour of the writ petitioner had not been denied by
the concerned authorities and the same had not been set aside, in
a manner known to law.
8. The appellants - who were not parties to the writ petition - are
not aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge directing
removal of the name "Sarakari Gunduthopu" from the RTC records.
They are aggrieved by the entries restored in the name of the writ
petitioner. There are inter se disputes between the writ petitioner
and the appellants. And, the appellants claim rights in respect to
the subject land pursuant to a partition effected in terms of a
judgment and decree dated 30.05.1975 in O.S.No.49/1973.
9. It is also stated that the appellants have filed a revision
petition (being R.P.No.338/2019-20) impugning the order dated
NC: 2025:KHC:46220-DB
HC-KAR
23.10.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner [being R.A.(BE)
No.130/2018].
10. As is apparent from the facts narrated above, the issue
regarding the inter se disputes between the appellants and
respondent No.5 (writ petitioner), was not subject matter of
consideration by the learned Single Judge. The order passed by
the learned Single Judge cannot be read so as to affect any right of
the appellants. The import to the impugned order is that the change
in the revenue entries by removing the name of the writ petitioner
and inserting the name of "Sarakari Gunduthopu", was not in
accordance with law. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has
merely directed that the entries as existed prior to the said
alteration, be restored. This, however, would not affect the
appellants' rights in any manner. It is equally obvious that the same
cannot be agitated in this appeal.
11. If the appellants succeed in securing any order from the Civil
Court or the concerned authorities, the impugned order would not
stand in the way of the appellants for insisting on change of
NC: 2025:KHC:46220-DB
HC-KAR
revenue entries. All rights of the appellants as well as the writ
petitioner in this regard, are reserved.
12. We also clarify that we have not examined the merits of the
decision rendered by the learned Single Judge and therefore, this
order would not foreclose the remedies as may be available to
respondent No.4, in the event the said authority seeks to challenge
the impugned judgment.
13. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
14. Pending applications also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KS
