K R Subramani vs The State Of Karnataka
2025 Latest Caselaw 8480 Kant

Karnataka High Court

K R Subramani vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 September, 2025

                           -1-
                                   WA No. 1063 of 2022



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

 DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

                       PRESENT
   THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
                         AND
    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
    WRIT APPEAL NO. 1063 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
K.R. SUBRAMANI,
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT KADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
BYRAKUR HOBLI,
MULABAGAL TALUK,
KOLAR-563 131.
                                      ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI. Y.R. SADHASHIVA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL
FOR SRI.RAHUL S.REDDY, ADVOCATE )

AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
    REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
    DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
    VIDHANA SOUDHA,
    BENGALURU-560 001.

2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
    KOLAR DISTRICT,
    KOLAR-563 131.

3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
    KOLAR SUB-DIVISION
    KOLAR-563 131.

4 . THE TASILDHAR
    MULABAGAL TALUK,
                                 -2-
                                            WA No. 1063 of 2022




   KOLAR-563 131.

5 . K.VENKATARAMAYA,
    S/O LATE VENKATAMUNIYAPPA,
    AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
    R/AT KADENAHALLI VILLAGE,
    BYRAKUR HOBLI,
    MULBAGAL TAUK
    KOLAR-563 131.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4,
    SRI.K.V. RAMACHANDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

        THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 20/09/2022 IN WP
NO.17395/2022 BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL.

     THIS APPEAL, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 10.09.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING:


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
            and
            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

                       CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)

This intra court appeal filed under Section 4 of

Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 is directed against the

order passed by the learned single judge dated

20.09.2022 in W.P.No.17395/ 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR).

2. It is the contention of the appellant that

survey No.240 of Kadenahalli Village, Byrakur Hobli,

Mulabagilu Taluk of Kolar District was totally measuring 5

acres 36 guntas. Out of that, the disputed property is 2

acre 35 guntas, which is standing in the name of

respondent No.5 herein. Since there is no dispute in

respect of remaining extent of 2 acre 35 guntas of the

said property, which was succeeded by the appellant from

his ancestors and others, it is not necessary to consider

the said property in detail in the present writ appeal.

3. According to the contention of the appellant,

one Venkatamuniyappa was the owner of Survey

No.240/1 to an extent of 2 acres 35 guntas. Earlier it was

part of survey No.240 and subsequently after phoding

(sub-division) it was given survey No.240/1. The said

Venkatamuniyappa was father of the respondent No.5.

The said Venkatamuniyappa had two wives, by name

Munivenkatamma and Chengamma. According to

contention of the appellant, both Munivenkatamma and

Chengamma together executed a registered sale deed

dated 27.05.1953 in favour of one Smt.Venkatamma, wife

of Chowdappa that is great grandmother of appellant.

Thereafter, the family of the appellant became absolute

owner of total extent of 5 acres 30 guntas in survey

No.240.

4. It was further contended by the appellant that

respondent No.5 had no right over the said property,

however, the respondent got his name entered in the

revenue records. The appellant herein challenged the said

mutation entry before the learned Assistant

Commissioner, Kolar Sub-Division in a case

RA.No.671/2016-17. After contest, the said appeal was

allowed and the order of the revenue entry standing in the

name of respondent No.5, set aside and concerned was

directed to enter the name of appellant in the revenue

records of the disputed property survey No.240/1

measuring 2 acres 35 guntas. That order was challenged

by the respondent No.5 herein before the learned Deputy

Commissioner, Kolar District in Case No.

R.A.P.No.72/2019. The learned Deputy Commissioner

after hearing, vide order dated 27.04.2022 set aside the

orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated

21.11.2019, that is produced in Annexure-K. That order

was challenged before the learned single judge in WP No.

17395/2022 (KLR-RR/SUR). The learned single judge after

hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition by

impugned order dated 20.09.2022. That is under

challenge in the present appeal.

5. We have heard the arguments of the learned

Advocates appearing for appellant as well as respondent

Nos. 1 to 5.

6. The learned counsel for appellant argued in

line with the contention raised in the appeal memo. He

further contended that Smt.Munnivenkatamma and

Smt.Chengamma had executed registered sale deed dated

27.05.1953 in favour of great grand mother of appellant

by name Venkatamma. Appellant has succeeded the said

property and actual and physical possession of the same.

The Deputy Commissioner did not consider the said

materials placed on record and erroneously allowed the

appeal filed by the respondent No.5. The learned single

Judge did not consider these materials and erred in not

setting aside this order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner. He further contends that the learned

Assistant Commissioner has rightly held that appellant has

been owner of the said property by virtue of the said sale

deed. Therefore, findings of the learned Deputy

Commissioner as well as learned single Judge are

erroneous and prayed to allow the appeal.

7. The learned Additional Government Advocate

as well as advocate appearing for respondent No.5

supported the impugned orders passed by the Deputy

Commissioner as well as the learned single Judge. They

further contended that there are no reasons to interfere in

the said findings of the learned single Judge and prayed to

dismiss the appeal.

8. The disputed property to an extent of 2.35

acres was earlier undisputedly was standing in the name

of Venkatamuniyappa. It is not in dispute that the said

property was sub-divided and re-numbered as survey

No.240/1 measuring 2 acres 35 guntas. There is no

dispute that the said Venkatamuniyappa had two wives by

name Smt.Munivenkatamma and Smt. Chengamma. It is

also not in dispute that respondent No.5 is the son of

Venkatamuniyappa.

9. The contention of the appellant is that his

family became the owner of the said disputed property by

virtue of a registered sale deed executed by

Smt.Munivenkatamma and Chengamma dated

27.05.1953. As observed by the learned single Judge, the

said sale deed did not see the light of the day till the

revenue records were challenged. Undisputedly, after

execution of the alleged sale deed dated 27.05.1953, no

revenue records were mutated in the name of purchaser

or his successors of the property giving effect to the said

sale deed in the revenue records. For the first time,

revenue records were challenged during the year 2017 i.e,

nearly after 64 years. No reasons were assigned for the

said delay and laches in mutating the revenue records.

10. In addition to that, a suit for partition was filed

by the members of the appellant's family in

O.S.No.207/2009 on the file of Civil Judge, Mulabagilu.

Undisputedly, the parties to the said suit claimed partition

of the property in survey No.240 to an extent of 5 acres

30 guntas. The said Court, after contest of the matter,

held that the family of Chowdappa had right only to an

extent of 2 acres 35 guntas and not 5 acres 36 guntas in

survey No.240 and it was also held that the parties to the

said suit are entitled to partition of the said property only

to an extent of 2 acres 35 guntas. An appeal was filed

against the same in R.A.No.62/2014 and the said appeal

was dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree

passed in O.S.No.207/2009 and it attained finality.

11. The appellant has produced xerox copy of the

said sale deed dated 27.05.1953. The said sale deed has

been seriously disputed by respondent No. 5. RTC and

revenue records of said land undisputedly stands in the

name of respondent No.5. As already noted above, for

about 64 years after the execution of the alleged sale

deed dated 27.05.1953, no action was taken by the

purchaser of the property bearing survey No.240/1 to

mutate her name in the revenue records. Thereafter also,

the daughters and grand daughters of deceased

Venkatamma, who succeeded to the property did not try

to enter their names in the revenue records. Title of the

appellant to the disputed property is under serious

challenge, such a seriously disputed question of facts

cannot be decided in the revenue or writ proceedings.

Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to decide the serious

disputed question of facts relating to title. It is settled

proposition of law that revenue courts have no jurisdiction

to decide the civil rights of the parties over an immovable

property.

12. The full Bench of this Court in the case of

Jayamma and others vs. State of Karnataka

represented by its Secretary, Department of

Revenue and others1, held that "the revenue officials in

the rank of Assistant Commissioner/appellate Authority

and Deputy Commissioner/Regional Authority under the

provisions of Section 136 (2) and (3) of the Karnataka

Land Revenue Act, cannot decide the dispute between the

inter se parties involving adjudication relating to title and

possession, but they are authorized only to decide the

entries based on the source of title."

96. The proceedings initiated under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and proceedings initiated under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure are different and distinct. In view of the provisions of Article 246(3) read with Entry 45 List II, Schedule VII and the Enactment of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which clearly indicate that the Revenue Authorities/Courts can only take necessary steps for assessment and recovery of land revenue and land revenue administration, maintenance of land Records, survey for revenue purpose, record of rights alone, there is no necessity for the parties first to exhaust their remedies under Chapter

reported in ILR 2020 Kar 1449

- 10 -

XI of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. In view of provisions of Section 135 and proviso under Section 62(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and thereafter, start denovo proceedings as contemplated under the proviso to Section 135 of the Act thereto. It is clear from the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act under that Chapter XI, begins with heading Record of Rights and has nothing to do with the interse civil dispute between the parties. This Court and Hon'ble Apex Court time and again has held that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title between the parties in respect of immoveable property.

97. In view of the proviso of Sections 135 and 62

(b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, a party can approach the Civil Court by filing a suit against any person denying or interested to deny his title for the relief of declaration of his right, to establish his private right and any declaration made by the competent Civil Court will be binding on the private parties as well as authorities concerned, who pass the orders under Section 136(2) and (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is well settled that any adverse finding recorded either by the Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner with regard to record of rights in respect of private parties or any entries exercising their power under the provisions of Section 136, Chapter XI of the Land Revenue Act, it shall not be binding on the Civil Court as well as any decision made by the authorities under the Land Revenue Act only with regard to land revenue, assessment and collection of revenue, maintenance of records, survey for revenue purpose and record of rights only. The authorities under the Land Revenue Act have no jurisdiction to decide the title between the parties and parties who are entitled can file a suit invoking the provisions of Section 9 of Code of Civil Procedure subject to cause of action as and when arises. Therefore, question No.3 under reference raised would not enlarge the period of limitation under the Central Enactment.

98. It is well settled that the revenue entries are not documents of title as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASIF HAMEED AND OTHERS vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND OTHERS and also in the case of GURUNATH MANOHAR PAVASKAR & OTHERS vs. NAGESH SIDDAPPA NAVALGUND, wherein para 11 and 12 read as under.

"11. Furthermore, the High Court committed an error in also throwing the burden of proof upon the appellant-defendants without taking into consideration the provisions of Section 101 of the

- 11 -

Evidence Act. In Narain Prasad Aggarwal v. State of M.P. [(2007) 11 SCC 736: (2007) 8 Scale 250] this Court opined: (SCC p. 746, para 19)

"19. Record-of-right is not a document of title. Entries made therein in terms of Section 35 of the Evidence Act although are admissible as a relevant piece of evidence and although the same may also carry a presumption of correctness, but it is beyond any doubt or dispute that such presumption is rebuttable."

12. A revenue record is not a document of title. It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession. Presumption of possession and/or continuity thereof both forward and backward can also be raised under Section 110 of the Evidence Act. The courts below, were, therefore, required to appreciate the evidence keeping in view the correct legal principles in mind."

Therefore, question No.4 raised under reference has to be answered in the negative holding that there is no need for the aggrieved party to exhaust remedies under Chapter XI of the Act and start den ova civil proceedings as contemplated under provision to Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

13. In view of the law laid down in the above said

judgment, the Revenue Courts or this Court under the writ

proceedings cannot decide civil rights in a summary trial.

The parties have to approach the Civil Court to declare

their civil right over the immovable property. This has

been observed by the learned single Judge in the

impugned judgment. The appellant instead of approaching

the Civil Court to get his right and title decided over the

immovable disputed property, wrongly approached this

Court in a writ proceedings as well as intra court appeal.

- 12 -

14. We do not find any error or perversity in the

impugned order passed by the learned Deputy

Commissioner as well as the learned single Judge of this

court. The appeal is a devoid of merits.

15. The learned advocate for appellant submits

that liberty may be given to the appellant to approach the

Civil Court to declare his right over the disputed property.

There is no need for granting any such liberty by this

Court. If the appellant so advised, the appellant may

approach the Civil Court seeking appropriate relief in

accordance with law.

16. For the aforesaid discussions, the appeal is

devoid of merits and hence it is dismissed.

Sd/-

(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

Sd/-

(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

AG