Karnataka High Court
Sri. Suresh G. Nanwani vs State Of Karnataka on 17 October, 2025
-1-
WA No. 655 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 655 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SURESH G. NANWANI
S/O LATE GOPALDAS NANWANI
AGED 68 YEARS
RESIDING AT HUNSAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 562 157
REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA HOLDER
ANOOP VANJANI.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI M.S. SHYAMPRASAD, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
MS. VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by
SUMATHY
KANNAN 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: High BY ITS REVENUE DEPARTMENT
Court of VIKASA SOUDHA
Karnataka
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001.
-2-
WA No. 655 of 2025
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 560 001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
YELAHANKA
BENGALURU - 560 064.
5. LAKSHMINARAYANA SHETTY
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA SHETTY
AGED 76 YEARS
RESIDING AT
HUNSAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
BENGALURU - 562 157.
6. SRI SANTHOSH RAJ URS. B.Y.
S/O SAROJA. R
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.318, "ARASU MANSION"
SECOND FLOOR
12TH A MAIN ROAD
6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 010.
7. SMT. PRARTHANA. A.G.
D/O A.S. GURUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.690/91
B.B. GARDEN ROAD
AGRAHARA, MYSURU - 570 004.
8. SRI SAINATH NAGURE
S/O ANNEPPA NAGURE
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO. FALGUNI 601
OLETY LANDMARK APARTMENT
-3-
WA No. 655 of 2025
NO.23, 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN
SHANKUMUTT
VAIYALIKAVAL LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 086.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S. HARISH, G.A. FOR R-1 TO 4 &
SRI DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W
SRI KIRAN B.Y., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-6 TO 8)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT
OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION OF
THE SAME NATURE AND QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
FEBRUARY 28, 2025 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
W.P. NO.2913/2025 CONSEQUENTLY & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS
PRONOUNCED AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal, impugning an
order dated 28.02.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.2913/2025 (KLR-RES), whereby the said petition was
dismissed.
2. The appellant had filed the said petition impugning an order
dated 24.01.2024 passed by respondent No.2 [Deputy
Commissioner], rejecting the revision petition [R.P.No.478/2024]
filed by the appellant under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1963 [KLR Act] impugning an order dated
24.09.2024 passed by respondent No.3 [Assistant Commissioner]
in RA (YLK)/402/2022, being an appeal preferred by respondent
No.5 under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act impugning mutation
entries (M.R. No.H4/2021-22) in favour of the appellant.
3. The controversy centres around a plot of land measuring 30
guntas falling in Sy.No.155/1 situated in Hunasemarenahalli, Jala
Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk [the subject land]. Respondent Nos.6 to 8
claim title to the subject land by virtue of a sale deed dated
25.11.2024 executed by respondent No.5. However, the appellant
disputes that respondent No.5 had acquired any title to the subject
land. The appellant has also instituted a civil suit being,
O.S.No.1293/2024 and states that the issue of title would be
determined finally in the said suit. He however contends that
pending adjudication of the disputes, the revenue authorities have
no jurisdiction to pass orders, which according to the appellant,
alter the entries in the Record of Rights [ROR].
4. The learned Single Judge had examined the relevant facts
and had concluded that respondent No.3 was justified in condoning
the delay in filing the appeal and directing that the name of
respondent No.5 be entered in the Record of Rights in respect of
the subject land. The learned Single Judge found orders passed
by respondent Nos.2 and 3 were legally sound and did not suffer
from any jurisdictional or procedural infirmity.
5. As noted above, the dispute centres around mutation entries
in respect of the subject land. The appellant seeks to trace his title
in respect of the land measuring 5 acres and 4 guntas falling in
Sy.No.155/1 from the original title holder, one Shri Jayaramaiah.
He claims that the said land - of which the subject land measuring
30 guntas is a part - was granted to Shri Jayaramaiah in terms of
an order dated 06.10.1962 passed in favour of Shri Jayaramaiah in
the inam proceedings.
6. Respondent No.5 relies on an order dated 31.07.1962 issued
in inam proceedings No.79/1959-60 granting 30 guntas (of the
subject property) out of the land of 5 acres and 4 guntas in favour
of one Shri Appashetty (since deceased). Respondent No.5
claims that his grandfather late Shri Appashetty was in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of a portion of land out of the land
measuring 4 acres and 10 guntas falling in Sy.No.155/1 of
Hunasemarenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, which
was originally a Jodi Inam land. He claims that after enactment of
the Inams Abolition Act, Shri Appashetty had made an application
for grant of occupancy rights. In terms of an order dated
31.07.1962 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for
Abolition of Inams in Case No.79/1959-60, an extent of 30 guntas
of land out of 4 acres 10 guntas, was granted in the name of Shri
Appashetty. It is further claimed that the name of Shri Appashetty
was entered in the land records in terms of R.R.No.79 /1959-60.
7. Respondent No.5 claims that after the demise of Shri
Appashetty, his four children succeeded to his estate. And, his
mother is one of those four children who inherited the estate of the
deceased Shri Appashetty. He claims that being the karta of the
joint family, he has been cultivating the subject land. However, his
name was not entered in the land records.
8. Respondent No.5 states that some time in November 2021,
the appellant who visited the land in question, attempted to
interfere with his peaceful possession of the subject land.
Respondent No.5 claims that immediately thereafter, he obtained
RTC extracts and became aware that the subject land had been
entered in the records in favour of the appellant.
9. Thereafter, respondent No.5 filed an appeal being R.A. (YLK)
No.402/2022 impugning the mutation entries MR No.H4 / 2021-22
in favour of the appellant. It is material to note that respondent
No.5 produced a copy of the order in Case No.79/1959-60 for
establishing that the subject land was granted in favour of Shri
Appashetty and was also mutated in his name.
10. Respondent No.5 also produced an endorsement dated
05.11.1964 directing Shri Appashetty to make the payments for the
subject land in ten equal installments. Respondent No.3 examined
the said documents and found that it substantiated respondent
No.5's claim to the subject land. The appellant was unable to
dispute the grant of the subject land measuring 30 guntas in favour
of Shri Appashetty. Respondent No.3 also found that the appellant
had failed to substantiate that the land falling in the entire survey
number (Sy.No.155/1) to the extent of 5 acres 4 guntas was
granted in favour of Jayaramaiah. Respondent No.3 noted that
land only to the extent of 4 acres and 10 guntas had been re-
granted in favour of Jayaramaiah in terms of an order passed in
Case No.72/1959-60. In the aforesaid view, respondent No.3
passed an order allowing the appeal and setting aside the mutation
entry MR No.H4 / 2021-22 and directed respondent No.4
(Tahsildar) to mutate the name of respondent No.5 in respect of the
subject land - the extent of 30 guntas falling in Sy.No.155/1.
11. The appellant contends that in terms of an order dated
06.10.1962 passed in inam proceedings No.72/1959-60, land
measuring 5 acres 4 guntas falling in Sy.No.155/1 was granted in
favour of one Jayaramaiah. Jayaramaiah (since deceased), had
made an application before the Special Tahsildar, Inams Abolition,
Devanahalli, seeking grant of lands including land measuring 5
acres and 4 guntas in Sy.No.155/1. Accordingly, proceedings
bearing No.72/1959-60 were initiated and Jurisdictional Special
Deputy Commissioner for Abolition of Inams, Bangalore, had
passed an order dated 06.10.1962 granting certain lands to
Jayaramaiah including lands to the extent of 5 acres and 4 guntas
in Sy.No.155/1. It is claimed on the basis of the orders so passed
that the name of Jayaramaiah was reflected in the RTCs from
1973-74 onwards. The appellant claims that the land measuring 5
acres 4 guntas which included 4 guntas of kharab land falling in
Sy.No.155/1 was partitioned between Jayaramaiah and his brother
Ramanna on 05.12.1991 and each of the brothers thus acquired 2
acres and 20 guntas of land. After partition, lands to the aforesaid
extent were recorded in the name of the two brothers in the
revenue records vide MR No.20/1991-92 and MR No.21/1991-92.
12. The appellant claims that each of the two brothers
Jayaramaiah and Ramanna, sold their respective shares, totaling 5
acres and 4 guntas, to Smt. Kamini R. Ramnani, by six separate
registered sale deeds dated 07.01.2003. The said lands were also
mutated in her name by six separate entries.
13. Smt. Kamini R. Ramnani had sold the entire land to one Smt.
Asha Pardeshi by a registered sale deed dated 07.09.2005. The
appellant claims that Asha Pardeshi - who is the appellant's sister
- gifted the entire land measuring 5 acres and 4 guntas by a
registered gift deed in favour of the appellant and the appellant's
name was entered in the Mutation Register vide MR No.
H4/2021-22.
14. However, the record indicates that Shri Jayaramaiah was not
granted lands measuring 5 acres as claimed by the appellant. The
order dated 06.10.1962 in Case No.72/1959-60 annexed to the
present appeal (Annexure-R10) indicates that Shri Jayaramaiah
was registered as a permanent tenant under the Mysore (Religious
- 10 -
and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 in respect of certain
lands including land measuring 4 acres 10 guntas falling in
Sy.No.155/1. There is no order, which establishes that land
measuring 5 acres 4 guntas falling in Sy.No.155/1 was granted in
favour of Shri Jayaramaiah.
15. As noted above, the appellant filed a revision petition before
respondent No.2 impugning the order dated 24.09.2024 passed by
respondent No.3. However, the said revision petition was
dismissed. The learned Single Judge found no fault with the orders
passed by respondent Nos.3 and 4 and accordingly, dismissed the
writ petition.
16. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the dispute as
to the title of the subject land is pending adjudication in the suit
being O.S.No.1293/2024. Therefore, the revenue authorities could
not alter the mutation entries based on a disputed claim of title.
The learned counsel also relied on the decision of the Full Bench of
this Court in Smt. Jayamma and Others v. The State of
Karnataka and Others : ILR 2020 KAR 1449, contending that the
revenue officials cannot decide the dispute inter se between the
parties involving adjudication relating to title and possession of
property.
- 11 -
17. There is no cavil with the proposition that the revenue
authorities cannot adjudicate disputes relating to title. It is equally
well-settled that mutation entries do not confer title to property.
However, it cannot be disputed that the revenue authorities are
authorised to make entries based on the source of the title.
18. As noted above, in the present case, the respondent No.5
has established that land measuring 30 guntas falling in
Sy.No.155/1 (subject land), had been granted in favour of Shri
Appashetty. The respondent No.5 had also produced an
endorsement dated 05.11.1964 calling upon Shri Appashetty to pay
the premium to the Government in respect of the subject land, in
ten installments.
19. The appellant on the other hand, traces his title in respect of
the lands falling in Sy.No.155/1 to the grant in favour of Shri
Jayaramaiah. However, the order dated 06.10.1962 - which is
relied upon by the appellant - does not establish that land
measuring 5 acres and 4 guntas falling in Sy.No.155/1 was granted
to Jayaramaiah. On the contrary, the said order indicates that
Jayaramaiah was accepted as the registered tenant in respect of
land falling in Sy.No.155/1 only to the extent of 4 acres and 10
- 12 -
guntas. The endorsement dated 05.11.1966 made by the
Additional Special Deputy Commissioner for the Inams Abolition,
has been placed on record, which also reflects that Jayaramaiah
was stated as a katha holder in certain survey numbers including
land measuring 4 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.155/1.
20. In the aforesaid circumstances, the concerned authorities
could not have entered the name of Jayaramaiah or any other
persons claiming through him in the mutation register in respect of
land measuring 5 acres (out of 5 acres 4 guntas falling in
Sy.No.155/1). The entries in favour of Jayaramaiah and his
successors-in-interest in respect of the land falling in Sy.No.155/1,
could not be made to the extent exceeding the area of 4 acres and
10 guntas.
21. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant also contended
that the appeal preferred by respondent No.5 being RA
(YLK)/402/2022) before respondent No.3 in respect of a mutation
entry, was not maintainable. He referred to Section 136(2) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and submitted that there was
no order passed under sub-section (4) of Section 129 of the KLR
Act in respect of any objections. He submitted that no objections
were raised before the Tahsildar (Respondent No.4) and no order
- 13 -
was passed under sub-section (6) of Section 129 of the KLR Act
and therefore, recourse to Section 136(2) of the KLR Act, was not
available to respondent No.5. He also referred to the Delhi Land
Revenue Act, 1954 and submitted that in contrast to the provisions
of the KLR Act, Section 64 of the said Act contains express
provision of an appeal against orders passed by the Assistant
Settlement Officer or Assistant Record Officer.
22. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contentions for
several reasons. First of all, no such ground was urged by the
appellant before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. The
impugned order does not reflect that any contention was advanced
to the aforesaid effect. No such specific ground has been raised in
the present appeal as well.
23. Secondly, a mutation entry made in the records, is reflective
of the order passed by the Tahsildar. It is incorrect to state that no
appealable order exists. Section 129 of the KLR Act contains
provisions regarding registration of mutation and register of
disputed cases. Sub-section (6) of Section 129 of the KLR Act
provides that entries in the register of mutations shall be tested and
if found to be correct, would be certified by the Officer as may be
prescribed. In the present case, there is no cavil that an entry
- 14 -
exists in the RTC and certified copy of the same has been
obtained.
24. Thirdly, Section 132 of the KLR Act also provides for suo
motu powers for revising the records.
25. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the correct
recourse for respondent No.5 is to make an application to the
Tahsildar for correction of the entries.
26. We do not consider it apposite to examine this question, as
no such contention was urged on behalf of the appellant in any
proceedings before the revenue authorities or before the learned
Single Judge. We note that the appellant has also not raised any
specific ground to this effect in this appeal as well.
27. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
28. Pending applications are also disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
KS
