Karnataka High Court
Smt. Puttamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43046-DB
WA No. 1556 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
WRIT APPEAL NO. 1556 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. PUTTAMMA
W/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
1. SRI NARAYANA
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
NO.27, HALE KUMBARA KOPPALU
HEBBALU
MYSURU - 570 002.
...APPELLANT
Digitally signed (BY SRI. SHRIDHAR NARAYAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
by
SHARADAVANI
B AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT
MYSURU - 570 001.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43046-DB
WA No. 1556 of 2024
HC-KAR
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSURU SUB DIVISION
MYSURU - 570 001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
MYSURU TALUK
MYSURU - 570 001.
5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
KESARE, KASABA HOBLI
MYSURU TALUK - 570 001.
6. SRI D MAHADEVU
S/O LATE DODDAIAH
MAJOR
7. SRI MUDDEGOWDA
S/O LATE CHIKKACHANNEGOWDA
MAJOR
8. SRI RAJASHETTY
S/O THIMMASHETTY
MAJOR
9. SRI MAHADEVU
S/O LATE MADAPPA
MAJOR
10. SRI C SHANKAR
S/O LATE CHANNEGOWADA
MAJOR
11. SRI MARIRAJU
S/O LATE KARIYAPPA
MAJOR
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:43046-DB
WA No. 1556 of 2024
HC-KAR
12. SRI S M SIDDEGOWDA
S/O MARIGOWDA
MAJOR
13. SRI RAMANNA
S/O LATE RANGABHOVI
MAJOR
RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 13 ARE
R/O IDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMAED JAFFER SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5
SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R13)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 11.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP No. 4822/2024 (KLR-RES) b) CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW
THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT
HEREIN, AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2023 PASSED
BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANNEXURE-F c) GRANT SUCH
OTHER RELIEFs AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER
THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
and
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:43046-DB
WA No. 1556 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)
The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant
being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.06.2024
passed in W.P.No.4822/2024 by the learned Single Judge in the
petition filed by the appellant herein.
2. The petitioner had impugned the order dated
21.11.2023 passed in Revision Petition No.25/2020 on the file
of the Deputy Commissioner; thereby, the revision petition filed
by the contesting respondents was allowed.
3. The facts as noted in paragraph No.2 of the
impugned judgment read as under:
"2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ petition
are that, the petitioner claims to be absolute owner in
possession of the land in question having purchased the
land in auction proceedings, and thereafter, his name has
been reflected in the revenue records. It is stated by the
petitioner that, the respondent No.4, by passing the order
at Annexure-D entered name as Burial Ground in the
column No.9 of RTC and feeling aggrieved by the same
the same the petitioner has preferred appeal before
respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner under Section
NC: 2025:KHC:43046-DB
HC-KAR
136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Respondent No.3, by order dated 12.02.2004 (Annexure-
E), allowed the application filed by the petitioner and set
aside the orders passed by respondent No.4-Thasildar,
entering the name of burial ground in the RTC extracts.
Being aggrieved by the same, revision petition was filed
before the respondent No.2 in RPNo.25 of 2020 and the
respondent No.2 by order dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure-F)
allowed the revision petition filed by the contesting
respondents and as such, set aside the order dated
12.02.2004 (Annexure-E) passed by the respondent No.3.
Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred
this writ petition.
4. The learned Single Judge, after considering the
documents produced by the parties in their pleadings and after
hearing the parties, has come to the conclusion that in the
earlier round of proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner, vide
order dated 21.09.2013, directed the parties to establish their
rights over the land in question in appropriate civil proceedings.
It appears that instead of filing the civil suit to establish their
respective rights, the appellant and other members of the
family filed a suit between themselves seeking partition of the
land in dispute. As the appellant herein tried to mislead the
Court, his petition has been dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-
NC: 2025:KHC:43046-DB
HC-KAR
to be paid by the appellant to the Karnataka State Legal
Services Authority.
5. Having considered the facts and circumstances of
the case and that the appellant had adopted collusive
proceedings by filing a partition suit about land in question, we
are of the view that there is no scope for interference and
therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(TARA VITASTA GANJU)
JUDGE
HDK
CT-SG
