Karnataka High Court
Sri H P Jayashankar vs The Deputy Commissioner on 4 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB
WA No. 1061 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH 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. 1061 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI H.P. JAYASHANKAR
S/O LATE V. PUTTANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
2. SRI H.P. SHANMUKAIAH
S/O LATE V. PUTTANA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
3. SRI H.P. SHIVSHANKAR PRAKASH
S/O LATE V. PUTTANNA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
Digitally
signed by 4. SRI H.P. PUNYESHAIAH
AMBIKA H B S/O LATE V. PUTTANNA SHETTY
Location: AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
High Court
of Karnataka
ALL APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT
HUSKUR MAIN ROAD
NEAR BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE
HUSKURU VILLAGE, HUSKURU POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560 099
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI ANANTH KUMAR C., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB
WA No. 1061 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
KHANDAYA BHAVAN
K.G. ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009
3. THE TAHASILDHAR
ANEKAL TALUK
ANEKAL - 562 106
4. SMT. SUMA
W/O LATE H.S. UMESH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
5. SRI THEJESH
S/O LATE H.S. UMESH
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
6. SRI. JAYANTH
S/O LATE H.S. UMESH
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS
7. SRI. BHUSHAN
S/O LATE V. SOMANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
8. SRI. VIRUPAKSHA
S/O LATE V. SOMANNA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
9. SRI MANJUNATH
S/O LATE V SOMANNA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESPONDENTS No.3 TO 8 ARE
RESIDING AT NO.168/1
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB
WA No. 1061 of 2024
HC-KAR
BEHIND MILK DAIRY
HOSKUR VILLAGE AND POST
SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 560 099
10. SMT. CHANDRAKALA
D/O LATE SOMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT NO.176/6
SHANKAR NAG ROAD
BEHIND KEB
ANEKAL TOWN AND TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 562 106
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 3
SRI GANAPTHI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R No.4 TO 10)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P.
No.5853/2024 DATED 21.06.2024 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, 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. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this
NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB
HC-KAR
Court in Writ Petition No.5853/2024 (KLR-RES), whereby the said
writ petition was allowed and the order dated 09.02.2024 passed
by respondent No.1 (the Deputy Commissioner) in Revision
Petition No.236/2023 was set aside. Respondent Nos.4 to 10 had
filed the said writ petition challenging the cancellation of the
revenue entries.
2. The dispute essentially relates to the entries made in the
Record of Rights in respect of property measuring 2 acres and 39
guntas falling in Survey No.16/7 situated at Harohalli Village,
Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District [subject
property]. The same also included 1 acre and 2 guntas of kharab
land. It is stated that the subject property originally belonged to Sri
V. Puttanna Shetty and he had acquired the same by virtue of a
registered Sale Deed dated 20.07.1949. The copy of the said deed
has been placed on record and there is no dispute that the subject
property was conveyed to him. After the demise of Sri Puttanna
Shetty, the land was mutated in the name of Sri V.Chandranna son
of Veeranna. The said change in the entry was subject matter of
challenge in an appeal bearing No.RA 413/1969-70, which was
preferred by Smt.Vanajakshamma, widow of Late Sri Puttanna
NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB
HC-KAR
Shetty. She claimed that the subject land was required to be
mutated in her name as the widow of the right holder. However, the
same had been changed on the basis of consent letter by forging
her signatures. The said appeal was allowed by an order dated
30.08.1969, which reads as under:
"Perused the records and heard the parties.
The respondent 2, Sri Chandranna states in his
statement that no consent of the appellant has been
obtained at the time of change of khate into his
name and the kathe of the lands in question may be
made in the name of the appellant as prayed for by
her. The appellant stays that while changing the
khathe of the land doubtful records have been built
up on the fraudulent signatures of Appellant have
given consent to change the khate. In the instant
the appeal to be genuine ground for the appeal.
I am of opinion after perusing the records that
the signature of the appellant has been forged.
Smt. Vanajakshamma denies this signatures. The
statement was recorded before the Taluk
Sheristedar. The Sheristedar ought to have
scrutinised properly. In the circumstances I held the
so called consent letter as fraudulent and the
change of khata ordered by the Tahsildar is set
aside and the Khata is ordered to be made in the
name of the appellant."
3. By virtue of the said order, the name of Smt.Vanajakshamma
was restored in the record of rights.
NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB
HC-KAR
4. Smt.Vanajakshamma expired on 01.09.2016. Thereafter, the
entries were subsequently changed on the basis of a Partition
Deed dated 16.10.1969. It is material to note that the change in
the land record was effected by order dated 11.04.2017 passed by
the concerned Tahsildar. The said entries were challenged by the
writ petitioners in an appeal, being RA No.769/2022-23 before the
Assistant Commissioner. The said appeal was allowed and the
mutation entries in respect of the land falling in Survey No.16/7
were set aside in terms of an order dated 29.03.2023.
5. The said order indicates that it is premised on the Partition
Deed dated 16.10.1969, which was entered into between the heirs
of Veeranna (the father of Late Sri Puttanna Shetty). The said
partition deed was purportedly executed after the demise of Sri
Puttanna Shetty, by his surviving brothers, whereby certain
properties were partitioned. The same also included the subject
property. Although Smt.Vanajakshamma (the mother of the
appellants) was alive, one of the brothers of late Sri Puttanna
Shetty had executed the partition deed as a guardian of the
appellants (sons of late Shri Puttanna Shetty), who were minors at
the material time.
NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB
HC-KAR
6. The said order dated 29.03.2023 was challenged by the
appellants before the Deputy Commissioner in revision petition
bearing No.RP 236/2023 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka
Revenue Act, 1964. On 09.02.2024, the Revisionary Authority
concluded that the writ petitioners did not have any right to get their
names mutated in the revenue records. The said order dated
09.02.2024 was impugned by the writ petitioners in the writ petition
which was allowed in terms of the impugned order.
7. The writ petitioners claim rights on the basis of the Partition
Deed. The principal question that arises for consideration is
whether name of the writ petitioners could be entered in the land
records on the basis of the Partition Deed dated 16.10.1969.
8. The documents clearly indicate that the name of the mother
of the appellants Smt.Vanajakshamma was entered in the record of
rights as a widow of Late Sri Puttanna Shetty. As noted, at the
outset, there is no dispute that the subject land had been acquired
by Sri Puttanna Shetty by virtue of the registered Sale Deed dated
20.07.1949. It is also evident that an attempt was made to change
the land records on the basis of a consent letter purportedly signed
NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB
HC-KAR
by Smt.Vanajakshamma. The same was subject matter of
challenge and it was found that her signatures have been forged.
9. It is apparent that the land records could not have been
changed on the basis of the partition deed to which
Smt.Vanajakshamma, is not a party.
10. Although the appellants are parties to the partition deed, it is
noted that they were minors at the material time and the partition
deed is signed by one of the brothers of their father on their behalf
as a guardian. However, there is no document on record which
would indicate that the brother of the appellants' deceased father
was appointed as a guardian even while their mother was alive.
The only explanation provided for Smt.Vanajakshamma not being a
party to the partition deed is that she was absconding at the
material time. However, there is no order on record, which
substantiates the same. The net result is that the partition deed in
question, which had the effect of divesting the property purchased
by the appellants' father Sri Puttanna Shetty, was executed by
persons who were neither the recorded owners nor had any
document establishing their rights, was accepted as the basis for
altering the land records.
NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB
HC-KAR
11. It is trite law that the revenue authorities have no power to
adjudicate the question as to the title of the immovable property.
The entries in the land records are required to be based on the
documents of title.
12. In the present case, it is difficult to accept that the partition
deed effected change in the title of the subject property considering
that the same had been entered into after the demise of Late
Puttanna Shetty, who was the owner of the subject property by
virtue of the Sale Deed dated 20.07.1949 and none of his legal
heirs had executed the same. As observed above, in the absence
of any order appointing the brother of Late Puttanna Shetty as a
guardian of his minor children, execution of the partition deed on
behalf of the appellants would be without any authority.
13. In view of the above, we are unable to accept that any
change could have been effected in the land records on the basis
of the partition deed without any order of a competent court.
14. It is also material to note that no steps were taken to change
the land records on the basis of the partition deed during the
lifetime of Smt. Vanajakshamma. The steps to change the land
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB
HC-KAR
records were taken after the demise of Smt.Vanajakshamma on
01.09.2016.
15. In the given circumstances, we are unable to concur with the
impugned order. The same is, accordingly, set aside.
16. The writ appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
17. We, however, clarify that this order is confined to the
question of the entries to be made in the land records till the suit
filed by the appellant (O.S. No.1032/2023) challenging the partition
deed is finally adjudicated. Needless to state that the entries would
necessarily have to reflect the outcome of the said suit.
18. The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed
of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
AHB
