Karnataka High Court
Sri A Krishnappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:34537-DB
WA No. 989 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
WRIT APPEAL NO. 989 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI.A.KRISHNAPPA,
S/O LATE ANJINAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT KODAGALAHATTI VILLAGE,
JALA HOBALI, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BANGALORE-562 157.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI.BHEEMAREDDY., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1.
by K G THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
RENUKAMBA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Location: HIGH REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA VIDHANSOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
K G ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:34537-DB
WA No. 989 of 2022
HC-KAR
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
K G ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 009.
4. THE TAHSILDAR,
YELAHANKA TALUK,
YELAHANKA,
BANGALORE-560 064.
5. SMT BAIYAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS,
R/AT SIDDENAHALLI VILLAGE,
SULIBELE POST AND HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-562 114,
DEAD BY LR'S.
5(A). SMT ROJA,
D/O ANJINAPPA,
W/O ANANDA BABU,
R/AT KODAGALAHATTI VILLAGE,
JAL HOBALI, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BANGALORE-562 157.
6. SMT MUNIVENKAKAYAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
7. SRI JAGADISH,
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:34537-DB
WA No. 989 of 2022
HC-KAR
8. SRI ANAND BABU,
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,
9. SMT. ASHA,
D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
10. SRI PRASANNA KUMAR,
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGEDA ABOUT 26 YEARS,
11. SRI KRISHNAMURTHY,
S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
R6 TO R11 ARE
R/AT KODAGALAHALLI VILLAGE,
H.M.HALLI POST, JALA HOBLI,
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU-562 157.
12. SRI CHIKKA VENKATAPPA,
S/O LATE KENCHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
R/AT KODAGALAHALLI VILLAGE,
H.M.HALLI POST, JALA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BANGALORE-562 157.
13. SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY,
S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.645, 4TH FLOOR,
15TH CROSS, CHAITANYA
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:34537-DB
WA No. 989 of 2022
HC-KAR
TECHNO SCHOOL,
VEERANNAPALYA,
BANGALORE-560 045.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4,
V/O DTD 06.10.2022, NOTICE TO R6 TO R12 IS
DISPENSED WITH, V/O DTD 02.12.2024 SERVICE
OF NOTICE TO R5(A) IS DEEMED COMPLETE,
SRI.SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA, FOR
SRI.VIGNESHWARA.U, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R11
R13 SERVED AS PER POSTAL TRACK)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO (A) SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2022 PASSED IN WP NO.12653/2020
(KLR-RES) (B) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2020 IN R.P
NO.362/2015-16 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT
ANNEXURE-R TO THE WRIT PETITION (C) ALLOW THE WRIT
APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)
I.A.No.4/2022 has been filed in which it has been stated
that the appellant had not produced the said documents before
the learned single Judge, as they were in the possession of the
Revenue Authorities and after long time the appellant got
NC: 2025:KHC:34537-DB
HC-KAR
certified copy. The application is filed for production of
documents. The documents it is stated are to prove that
respondent No.5 played fraud to get occupancy rights in favour
of the Talavar Jakkappa.
2. We perused the order of the learned single Judge.
3. After considering the facts, it has been observed in
the judgment under appeal that the dispute has been raised
with regard to revenue entries. It has been observed that the
petitioner traces his title only through the legatees of Bajappa.
Bajappa appears to have executed a Will in respect of
Sy.No.125/1 and yet revenue entries were mutated in respect
of Sy.No.126/1. It has been observed that the entire claim of
the petitioner's title is the Will executed by Bajappa which, as
per the Will the title can only be traced to Sy.No.125/1.
Thereafter, while rejecting the Writ Petition it has been
observed that these revenue entries would be subject to the
ultimate result of any litigation which is pending in the Civil suit
and the parties obtaining a positive decree would be entitled to
get their names entered in the revenue records on the basis of
the said decree and the entries now ordered to be mutated as
NC: 2025:KHC:34537-DB
HC-KAR
per order of the Deputy Commissioner would abide by the said
decree.
4. It is a settled law that mutation entries do not confer
any title. They are only for the purpose of ascertaining as to
which party is liable for payment of land revenue. Matters
relating to disputes of title are best adjudicated by the Court of
competent jurisdiction. This being the law, we find no error in
the order of the learned single Judge that would merit
consideration of this appeal.
This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
All pending I.As. are disposed of.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
BVK
