[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Mr Pavan P vs State Of Karnataka on 23 February, 2026
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11069
WP No. 8560 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 8560 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. MR. PAVAN P
S/O LATE PUTTAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
2. MR. G. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH
S/O LATE GANGAHANUMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NO. 24,
SASUVEGHATTA VILLAGE,
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI,
YALAHANKA TALUK,
BANGALURU DISTRICT - 560 088.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R. SRINIVASA GOWDA., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by JUANITA
THEJESWINI AND:
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001
REP BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER-3
BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION,
K G ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001.
3. THE TAHSILDHAR
YALAHANKA TALUK,
YALAHANKA 560064.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11069
WP No. 8560 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
HESARAGHATTA-1 HOBLI,
YALAHANKA TALUK 560 088.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.SESHU., HCGP)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE MUTATION
ORDER PASSED IN M.R.NO.T 14/2023-24 DTD. 30.04.2024 BY
THE R-4 (ANNX-L) AND THE ORDER DTD. 04.05.2024 PASSED
BY THE R-3 IN CASE NO. RRT(DIS) CR.106/2024 (ANNX-M)
AND DIRECT THE R-3 AND 4 TO EFFECT MUTATION IN FAVOR
OF LATE S.M. GANGAHANUMAIAH S/O MUNIYAPPA IN TERMS
OF THE ORDER DTD. 04.12.2023 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE
NO. RRT(2)(NA)CR11/2019-20 (ANNX-H) AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are aggrieved of the mutation order
in M.R No.T 14/2023-24 dated 30.04.2024 at Annexure-L
and the Office Order dated 04.05.2024 passed by the
Special Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk in proceedings bearing
No.RRT(DIS) CR.106/2024 at Annexure-M.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
Sri.Gangahanumaiah, the father of petitioner No.2 and
grandfather of petitioner No.1 had filed an application
NC: 2026:KHC:11069
HC-KAR
seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation of 2.00
Acres of land in Survey No.14 of Sasuveghatta Village,
Hesaraghatta Hobli, Yalahanka Taluk and the Tahsildar,
the competent authority issued an Official Memorandum
on 04.07.1978 granting the said lands in favour of
Sri.Gangahanumaiah. Thereafter, Saguvali Chit was issued
after collecting the kimmath and the name of the grantee -
Sri.Gangahanumaiah was also entered in the revenue
records. However, after computerization, the name of
Sri.Gangahanumaiah was not continued in the revenue
records.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further
submitted that in the meanwhile, at the instance of the
Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk, the Special Deputy
Commissioner-3, Bengaluru North Sub-Division took up
suo motu proceedings under Section 136(3) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and after verification
of the original records, the Special Deputy Commissioner
held that it is true that the lands were granted in favour of
NC: 2026:KHC:11069
HC-KAR
the Sri.Gangahanumaiah. Accordingly, the proceedings
initiated before the Special Deputy Commissioner was
dropped by order dated 04.12.2023 with a direction to the
Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk to mutate and enter the name
of the petitioners in the revenue records as they are the
legal heirs of Sri.Gangahanumaiah. However, the
Tahsildar, instead of complying with the directions issued
by the Special Deputy Commissioner, passed the
impugned mutation order in M.R.No.T14/2023-24 dated
30.04.2024 at Annexure-L declining to enter the name of
the petitioners in the revenue records while stating that
the claim of the petitioners is unfounded and the
documents that are produced by the petitioners are bogus.
Thereafter, the Special Tahsildar passed the impugned
Office Order dated 04.05.2024 at Annexure-M reiterating
what was stated in the mutation order and declined to
enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records.
4. Today, the learned High Court Government
Pleader has filed a memo along with a copy of a
NC: 2026:KHC:11069
HC-KAR
communication dated 26.06.2025 made by the Tahsildar,
Yalahanka Taluk to the Regional Commissioner, Bangalore
Division, seeking proceedings to be initiated under Section
56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that
the order was passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner
on 04.12.2023. If at all the Tahsildar or the State was
aggrieved of such an order passed by the Special Deputy
Commissioner, a revision petition could have been filed
before the competent authority in terms of Section 56(3)
within a period of 4 months from the said date. The
learned Counsel therefore submits that it is not
permissible for the Tahsildar to seek to commence
proceedings under Section 56 of the Act at the hands of
the competent authority.
6. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners,
the learned High Court Government Pleader and on
perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the
NC: 2026:KHC:11069
HC-KAR
respondent-Tahsildar has exceeded his limits in passing
the impugned mutation order dated 30.04.2024 at
Annexure-L and issuing the impugned office order dated
04.05.2024 at Annexure-M. When a higher authority
passes an order, the officers below the said officer are
required to comply with the directions issued by the higher
officer. If the officer at a lower level is of the opinion that
the orders passed by the higher authority is not in
accordance with law, then action should be taken only in
accordance with law. There is a clear direction issued by
the Special Deputy Commissioner that the names of the
petitioners should be entered in the revenue records.
However, after a lapse of nearly 2 years the impugned
action has been taken by the Tahsildar declining to enter
the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. Such
an action is clearly opposed to the provisions of law and
the discipline which is required to be maintained by the
officers.
NC: 2026:KHC:11069
HC-KAR
7. Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned mutation order in M.R No.T 14/2023-24 dated
30.04.2024 at Annexure-L and the Office Order dated
04.05.2024 passed by the Special Tahsildar, Yalahanka
Taluk in proceedings bearing No.RRT(DIS) CR.106/2024 at
Annexure-M, are hereby quashed and set aside. The
respondent-Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk and the Deputy
Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District are hereby
directed to proceed to enter the names of the legal heirs of
Sri.Gangahanumaiah in the revenue records in terms of
the directions issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner
in proceedings bearing No. RRT(2) (NA) CR 11/2019-20
dated 04.12.2023 as expeditiously as possible and at any
rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
DL
CT: JL
