[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri M Jayaram vs The Deputy Commissioner on 23 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.1209/2021(KLR)
C/W
WRIT APPEAL NO.1183/2021 (SCST)
IN W.A.No.1209/2021:
BETWEEN
SRI M JAYARAM
S/O LATE VADDARA BUDDIGA,
@ K M MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT KOODLU VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRASANNA B R, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
BENGALURU.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
2
4. SRI B S SOMASHEKAR
S/O LATE B. SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT NO.467, 12TH MAIN ROAD,
M C LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040
5. SRI OBALA REDDY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
5(a) PAPANNA
S/O LATE K.N. OBALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
5(b) LOKESH REDDY
S/O LATE K.N.OBALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
5(c) NAGARAJA REDDY
S/O LATE K.N.OBALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
5(d) RUKKAMMA
D/O LATE K.N.OBALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
5(e) VENKATESH REDDY
S/O LATE K.N.OBALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
5(f) NIRMALA
D/O LATE K.N.OBALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
5(g) RENUKA
D/O LATE K.N.OBALA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.581
KUDLU VILLAGE, HARALURU ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 068
3
6. SRI BEERAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.,
6(a) SRI K B MANJUNATH,
S/O LATE BEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
6(b) SRI K B GOPAL
S/O LATE BEERAPPA
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
7. SRI RAGHURAMA REDDY
S/O OBALA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
8. SRI BABU REDDY
S/O OBALA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT
KOODLU VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI,
ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI D.L.JAGADEESH, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.RAKSHITHA.D.J., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4;
SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3;
R5(A), R6(A AND B), R7 AND R8 ARE SERVED;
R5(b to g) - SERVICE OF NOTICE IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE
COURT ORDER DATED 22.01.2025)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN
W.P.NO.10499/2011 (KLRT) DATED 04.10.2021.
4
IN W.A.No.1183/2021:
BETWEEN:
SRI M JAYARAM
S/O LATE VADDARA BUDDIGA,
@ K M MUNISWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
R/AT KOODLU VILLAGE,
SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK,
BENGALURU DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRASANNA B R, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
BENGALURU
2 . THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
BENGALURU.
3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU SOUTH SUB DIVISION,
BENGALURU
4 . THE TAHASILDAR
ANEKAL TALUK,
ANEKAL,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
5 . SRI B S SOMASHEKAR
S/O LATE B SIDDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
R/AT NO.467, 12TH MAIN ROAD,
M C LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR,
BENGALURU-560 040
..RESPONDENTS
5
(BY SRI D.L.JAGADEESH, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.RAKSHITHA.D.J, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5;
SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.10.2021 IN W.P.NO.13021/2011
(SC-ST) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS
COURT AND TO DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 09.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
Writ Appeals No.1209/2021 and 1183/2021 are filed
challenging the common order dated 04.10.2021 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Writ Petitions No.10499/2011
(KLR RR/SUR) c/w. 13021/2011 (SC-ST), respectively.
2. We have heard Shri. Udaya Holla, learned senior
counsel as instructed by Shri. Prasanna B.R, learned
advocate appearing for the appellant in both the appeals,
Shri. D.L. Jagadeesh, learned senior counsel as instructed by
Smt. Rakshitha D.J, learned advocate appearing for
caveator/respondent No.4 in Writ Appeal No.1209/2021 and
for caveator/respondent No.5 in Writ Appeal No.1183/2021
and Smt. Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 in Writ Appeal
No.1209/2021 and for respondents No.1 to 4 in Writ Appeal
No.1183/2021.
3. The appellant (Shri. M. Jayaram) was respondent
No.4 in W.P.No.10499/2011 and respondent No.5 in
W.P.No.13021/2011. In the writ petition, Shri. B.S.
Somashekar, (respondent No.4 in W.A.No.1209/2021 and
respondent No.5 in W.A.1183/2021), who was the writ
petitioner, claimed to be the absolute owner in possession of
land bearing Sy.No.215 (Old Sy.No.148) measuring 2 acres
1 gunta situated at Koodlu Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal
Taluk. The appellant, who was the contesting respondent
claimed to be the son of Shri. Vaddara Buddiga @ K.M.
Muniswamy, the grantee of the subject property.
4. Further, the appellant had made an application
for permission to sell the land in question as the grant is
attracted by the provisions of the Prohibition of Transfer of
Certain Lands (Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes) Act,
1978. By considering the same, the State Government has
given permission as per the Order dated 16.12.2010.
Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner permitted to sell
the land in question subject to certain terms and conditions
according to Official Memorandum dated 01.01.2011.
Aggrieved by the same, W.P.No.13021/2011 was preferred
by respondent No.4 and clubbed with W.P.No.10499/2011,
wherein, the Orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Special
Deputy Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner were
challenged.
5. The appellant contends that upon the demise of
his father, he made an application before the Tahasildar for
transfer of inheritance khatha with respect to the land
bearing original Sy.No.148, new Sy.No.215 measuring to an
extent of 2 acres 01 gunta situated at Koodlu Village,
Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. The Tahasildar through a
letter dated 24.06.2006 addressed to the Assistant
Commissioner communicated that the name of one Shri.
B.S. Somashekar - respondent No.4 has been mutated in
the record of rights vide registered Sale Deed dated
04.05.1998 and the schedule mentioned in the Sale Deed
and the actual schedule of the land in Sy.No.215 are not
tallying. Further, the land in Sy.No.215 has been granted in
favour of father of the appellant as per Order dated
16.08.1973 and Saguvali Chit has been issued in his name
on 10.12.1980.
6. Pursuant to this report, the Assistant
Commissioner registered an appeal under Section 136(2) of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('KLR Act' for short).
Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner ordered to mutate
the name of the appellant in respect of the land in
Sy.No.215 measuring to an extent of 2 acre 01 gunta
situated at Koodlu Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
through Order dated 15.12.2006. Aggrieved by this Order,
respondent No.4 preferred Revision Petition No.71/2007-08
which was dismissed by the Special Deputy Commissioner as
per Order dated 01.10.2009.
7. Respondent No.4 contended before the learned
Single Judge that the land in Sy.No.215 was originally
acquired by Shri. H.V. Ramaswamy Iyengar in 1942 under
the Government's Grow More Food Scheme (GMF) and
thereafter alienated the land in question in favour of Shri.
Kodathi Muniyappa under a Sale Deed dated 10.06.1944.
The property was subsequently alienated in favour of Shri.
Vaddara Buddiga, the appellant's father, by way of
registered Sale Deed dated 27.05.1946. Thereafter, the
property was alienated in favour of Shri. K.N. Obala Reddy
on 10.07.1967. Subsequently, the property was alienated in
favour of Shri. Beerappa on 17.07.1972, following which,
Shri. Beerappa sold it to Shri. Raghurama Reddy under a
Sale Deed dated 14.09.1995. Shri. Raghurama Reddy and
his son, Babu Reddy (Respondents No.7 and 8), ultimately
sold and conveyed the property to Respondent No.4 under a
Sale Deed dated 04.05.1998. The entries in the RTC were
mutated in favour of respondent No.4. Long thereafter, an
Order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner directing
rectification in the record of rights which was upheld by the
Deputy Commissioner.
8. Respondent No.4 had further contended that the
revenue authorities wrongly came to the conclusion that the
land granted in favour of the father of the appellant and the
land purchased by respondent No.4 are different. The sale in
favour of respondent No.4 and his predecessor has not been
questioned. Further, in the grant certificate there is no
mention about boundaries, therefore, vitiating the orders of
the Assistant Commissioner and Special Deputy
Commissioner.
9. The learned Single Judge considered the issue
whether Shri. Ramaswamy Iyengar and the appellant's
father - Shri. Vaddara Buddiga were granted different lands.
It was held that the appellant's right to revenue entries for
the land in question (Sy.No.215) would involve decisions on
the alleged change in the boundaries by respondent No.4's
predecessors-in-title in the Sale Deed executed by them.
These questions could not have been decided by the
revenue authorities. Therefore, the learned Single Judge set
aside the orders of the Special Deputy Commissioner and
the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division
and ordered to restore the revenue entries in the name of
respondent No.4 with respect to the land in Sy.No.215
measuring 2 acres and 01 Gunta.
10. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant contended that the learned Single Judge concluded
that the Assistant Commissioner cannot be permitted to
initiate proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Section
136(2) of the KLR Act. It is contended that the question with
regard to maintainability of the appeal under Section 136(2)
of the KLR Act was not raised by respondent No.4 in the writ
petition. It is therefore, contended that the finding by the
learned Single Judge that the power of appeal was exercised
by the Assistant Commissioner belatedly and without any
application for condonation of delay was not based on the
pleadings of the parties.
11. It is further contended that respondent No.4
claims his rights over the land owing to the registered Sale
Deed dated 04.05.1998. However, the documents produced
along with the writ petition made it evident that the land in
question was leased to Shri. H.V. Ramaswamy Iyengar. Due
to violations of the grant conditions, the authorities had
cancelled the grant in favour of Shri. H.V. Ramaswamy
Iyengar. As a result, subsequent sale deeds cannot be
construed as valid documents to transfer revenue entries.
Further, respondent No.4 did not dispute the grant made in
favour of father of the appellant. The Tahasildar specifically
stated that the property in question bearing Sy.No.215 is
granted to the father of the appellant as per Order
No.O.M.No.LND/CR/209/1969-70 dated 16.08.1973 and the
Saguvali Chit dated 10.12.1980.
12. It is further contended that the learned Single
Judge failed to appreciate that after cancellation of grant of
land to H.V. Ramaswamy Iyengar, the land was granted in
favour of father of the appellant. Further, the name of the
grantee Shri. Vaddara Buddiga was mutated and continued
up to 1998 in the record of rights. However, owing to the
1998 sale deed respondent No.4's name was mutated in the
revenue records. The material documents would clearly
show that owing to cancellation of grant in favour of Shri.
H.V. Ramaswamy Iyengar, subsequent sale transactions will
not create a better title for respondent No.4. Therefore, the
revenue entry made in the name of respondent No.4 is
illegal as it is based on a void document.
13. It is further contended that under Section 136(2)
of the KLR Act, the Assistant Commissioner has the power to
rectify the mutation entry which has been made illegally.
Further, under Section 25 of the KLR Act, the Assistant
Commissioner has inherent power to make such orders as
may be necessary in the ends of justice or to prevent the
abuse of process of the Revenue Court.
14. It is further contended that respondent No.4 is
tracing his title pursuant to the Sale Deeds dated
10.06.1944, 27.05.1946, 10.07.1967 and 04.09.1995, but it
is alleged that he has suppressed the change of boundary in
the Sale Deed dated 04.09.1995. The learned Single Judge
did not direct respondent No.4 to establish his title and the
sketch prepared by the Taluka Surveyor confirming the
possession of the appellant over the subject property was
not considered as well.
15. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant has relied on the decision of this Court in the case
of Sri. Suresh G. Nanwani v. State of Karnataka and
Others passed in Writ Appeal No.655/2025 (KLR-RES)
dated 17.10.2025 and contended that there is power in the
revenue authorities to rectify clear errors in the land records
when there is no supporting conveyance of rights and title.
16. Shri. D.L. Jagadeesh, the learned senior counsel
appearing for respondent No.4 - Shri. B. S. Somashekar
(Petitioner in W.P.No.10449/2011 c/w. W.P.
No.13021/2011), submits that the exercise by the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner was completely
unsustainable. It is submitted that though the appellant
claims that his father was in possession of the property on
the basis of a grant made in the year 1973, he made an
application for transfer of khata only in the year 1998. It is
submitted that in the meanwhile, on the basis of the Sale
Deed dated 04.05.1998, the record of rights had already
been mutated in favour of respondent No.4. It is submitted
that once an entry is made in the mutation register, an
appeal has to be preferred under Section 136 of the KLR Act
within sixty days from the date of communication of the
order or the knowledge of the entry certified. It is submitted
that though there is power available to the Deputy
Commissioner to call for and examine the records of entries
made under Section 127 and Section 129 of the KLR Act,
such power also cannot be exercised suo motu after the
expiry of long periods after the mutation entry is made.
17. It is submitted that in the instant case, the
mutation entry having been made in the year 1998 the
action of the official respondents in having reopened the
mutation in the year 2006 and in recording the khata in
favour of the appellant, was completely unjustified. It is
further contended that it is a trite law that mutation of khata
does not result in transfer of title and that the question of
title has to be decided in a duly constituted Civil Suit. It is
submitted that in view of the fact that respondent No.4's
name had been recorded in the record of rights since 1998,
there was no reason why the same should be changed
without a finding by a competent Civil Court.
18. The learned senior counsel has placed reliance on
the following decisions:-
• Shri. Dharmoji Devendra Kadabi v. The
Assistant Commissioner reported in ILR 1998
KAR 1030;
• B. Bhadragiri Gowda v. The State of Karnataka
by its Secretary Department of Revenue and
Others reported in ILR 2007 KAR 110;
• Smt. Beepathumma v. Deputy Commissioner,
Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore and Others
reported in ILR 2002 KAR 4013;
• Shri. Uppar Eranna v. The Deputy
Commissioner Bellary District Bellary and
Others passed in Writ Petition No.10453/2007
(KLR-RR-SUR) dated 07.09.2007, and
• N. Vasudevaraju v. Deputy Commissioner and
Others passed in Writ Petition No.28533/2010
(KLR-RES) dated 22.09.2010.
19. We have considered the contentions advanced. It
is noticed that the land in question, that is, Sy.No.215
measuring to an extent of 2 acres 01 gunta situated at
Koodlu Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, is the petition
schedule property. It is the specific case of the appellant
herein that the grant in favour of Shri. H.V. Ramaswamy
Iyengar had been cancelled on 31.03.1965. A copy of the
said document is produced by the appellant along with
statement of objections filed by respondent No.4 to the writ
petition as Annexure-R1.
20. Thereafter, it is contended that the schedule land
has been granted in favour of father of the appellant as per
Order dated 16.08.1973 and Saguvali Chit was issued in his
name on 10.02.1980. It is contended that the said grant
was reflected in the record of rights. The appellant's father
passed away on 01.06.1998. It is contended that the
appellant made an application for mutation of the khata on
inheritance under Section 129 of the KLR Act in the year
1998. We notice that Annexure - R4 produced along with
the Statement of Objections filed by respondent No.5 (Shri.
M. Jayaram) in Writ Petition No.13021/2011, shows that the
appeal or application preferred by the appellant herein was
admittedly in the year 2006-07. It is noticed that Tahasildar,
Anekal Taluk by letter dated 24.06.2006 had reported, on a
petition filed by the appellant herein, that the entry of the
name of respondent No.4 in the record of rights on the basis
of the registered Sale Deed of 1998 was erroneous. On the
basis of the said report, Annexure-R4 was passed by the
Assistant Commissioner who came to the conclusion that the
mutation entry made in favour of respondent No.4 was not
correctly done, since the grant in favour of Shri. H.V.
Ramaswamy Iyengar stood cancelled in the year 1965 itself.
Though respondent No.4 took up the matter before the
Deputy Commissioner, the said finding was upheld.
21. The learned Single Judge has considered the facts
of the case and has come to the clear conclusion that the
proceedings had not been carried out with due notice to
respondent No.4, whose name stood recorded in the RTC. It
was also found that appeal under Section 136(2) of the KLR
Act could have been filed only within a period of sixty days.
The power of suo motu revision being conferred only on the
Deputy Commissioner, the Tahasildar or Assistant
Commissioner could not have exercised such powers to
make corrections in the RTC, that too without proper notice.
22. We find that in Annexure - R4 Order, the address
of respondent No.4 herein is shown as Shri. B.S.
Somashekar s/o. Late Siddaiah, Raghavanagar, Bengaluru-
560 026. This is in spite of the fact that the full address of
respondent No.4 at the relevant time is available in the Sale
Deed of the year 1998 on the basis of which his name was
recorded in the record of rights. It is clear from a reading of
Annexure - R4 that respondent No.4 or his vendors had not
been heard before the Order was passed. It is in the above
circumstances, that the learned Single Judge held that the
proper procedure for passing an order canceling entries
already recorded in the RTC had been followed only in its
breach in the instant case. It was also found that the power
of suo motu revision is not available to the Assistant
Commissioner and the same could have been exercised only
by the Deputy Commissioner. Though these aspects of the
matter were specifically raised before the Deputy
Commissioner in revision, the contentions were not
considered by the Deputy Commissioner.
23. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.655/2025.
The Division Bench held that a mutation entry made in the
records is reflective of an order passed by the Tahasildar
and that an appeal against the same would be maintainable.
It was also found that a suo motu power of revision is also
available to the Deputy Tahasildar. However, we notice that
in the instant case, the name of respondent No.4 had
admittedly been recorded in the RTC in the year 1998, this
fact is not disputed by the appellant at all. For such an
entry to have been corrected there should have been an
appeal which was considered in accordance with law with
notice to the persons whose name so stands recorded at the
relevant time. In the instant case, though an application by
the appellant filed in the year 2005-06 dated 24.06.2006 is
referred to, it is clear that neither the Tahasildar nor the
Assistant Commissioner considering the belated appeal filed
in the year 2006-07, has actually heard either respondent
No.4 or his predecessors-in-interest, before passing the
Order dated 15.12.2006. Further, this Court has repeatedly
held that a correction in the revenue entries on belated
challenge in appeal is impermissible in the Scheme of KLR
Act.
24. The question of title to a property is admittedly to
be decided in a properly Constituted Suit by the competent
Civil Court. The only question, which was considered by the
learned Single Judge, was whether the change in the RTC
was effected with proper notice and following the due
process of law.
25. Having considered the contentions advanced, we
notice that the learned Single Judge has considered the facts
of the case in its proper perspective and held that the
change of name in the RTC was not carried out with proper
notice and after following due procedure. It is pertinent to
note that the question of title has not been gone into by the
learned Single Judge and the direction is only to restore the
entries in the RTC subject to decision in any suit to be filed
by the appellant herein.
26. In the above factual situation, we are of the
opinion that the findings of the learned Single Judge cannot
be found fault with. The appeals fail and the same are
accordingly dismissed. We make it clear that this will not
stand in the way of adjudication of any suit or proceeding
with regard to title by a competent Civil Court in accordance
with law. All questions on title are expressly left open.
All pending interlocutory applications shall stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*
