[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. M.S. Ramakrishnaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
W.A. No.565/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.565/2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M.S. RAMAKRISHNAIAH
S/O SANJEEVAIAH
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/AT. MAYAGANAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK
Digitally signed RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
by ARSHIFA
BAHAR KHANAM
Location: HIGH ...APPELLANT
COURT OF (BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, ADV., FOR
KARNATAKA
SRI. RAJU S, ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU- 560001
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU- 560009.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
W.A. No.565/2023
HC-KAR
3. SRI. K. GOPALASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK
KANDAYA BHAVAN
KEMPEGOWDA ROAD
BENGALURU- 560009.
4. SMT. BAYYAMMA
W/O H.M. KRISHNA MURTHY
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
R/AT NO.4, VIVEKANANDA COLONY
BANASHANKARI
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU- 560078.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. VARUN GOWDA, ADV., FOR R4
R3 SERVICE OF NOTICE IS D/W V.C.O.DTD:02.02.2026)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
23.03.2023 IN W.P. No.23839/2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) PASSED BY
THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT,
CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 13.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
W.A. No.565/2023
HC-KAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
CORAM: and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
This appeal is filed by the appellant under Section 4
of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the
order dated 23.03.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.23839/2016 (KLR-RR/SUR).
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this
appeal are that the appellant claims to be the owner of the
land bearing Sy.No.369 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas
situated at Kempapura Agrahara, Kasaba Hobli, Benagluru
North Taluk, having purchased the same in the year 1968.
The respondent No.4 made a representation on
05.11.2014 before the respondent No.2 seeking transfer of
the Katha entry in respect of Sy.No.369 to an extent of 2
acres 28 guntas on the basis of Will dated 29.12.1979.
The respondent No.2, without giving notice to the
appellant, proceeded to pass an order dated 17.12.2014
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
HC-KAR
directing the transfer of khatha in favour of the respondent
No.4. The said order passed by respondent No.2 was
assailed before the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.23839/2016. The learned Single Judge on
considering the provision of law proceeded to dismiss the
petition on the ground that an alternative remedy was
available by way of appeal under Section 49 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the Assistant
Commissioner. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed.
3. Sri. R.Subramanya., learned counsel appearing
for Sri.Raju.S., learned counsel for the appellant submits
that the learned Single Judge has erroneously dismissed
the writ petition on the ground that the change in the
revenue entry must be challenged by way of an appeal
before the Assistant Commissioner. It is submitted that in
the earlier proceedings the respondent No.2 vide order
dated 16.02.1983 rejected the claim of the father of
respondent No.4, which was affirmed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Bangalore. In the meanwhile, the
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
HC-KAR
respondent No.4, claiming to be the daughter of the
appellant's vendor, filed a suit for declaration and
possession based on the Will, which was dismissed, the
Regular First appeal was also dismissed. It is submitted
that the proceedings before the revenue authorities with
regard to the change of khatha has attained finality by the
order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 21.07.1998, who
held that the revenue entries are subject to outcome of
the suit filed by the respondent No.4. It is further
submitted that the civil proceedings initiated by
respondent No.4 has also attained finality and the right,
title and possession over the suit schedule property of the
appellant is proved in those proceedings. It is contended
that knowing fully well all these facts, the respondent No.4
again moved an application before the respondent No.2
seeking to mutate the name of the respondent No.4 on the
basis of the very same Will. Hence, the appellant, who is a
title holder of the property, filed the writ petition. It is
further contended that the order of the respondent No.2 is
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
HC-KAR
wholly without jurisdiction and amounts to abuse of
process of law. These aspects have not been appreciated
by the learned Single Judge while relegating the appellant
to an appeal remedy. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, Sri.Varun Gowda, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.4 supports the order of the
learned Single Judge and submits that the learned Single
Judge has directed the appellant to file an appeal against
the impugned order and the appellant cannot have any
grievance. It is submitted that the statute provides for
alternate remedy and in view of the same, the appellant
cannot invoke the writ jurisdiction. It is further submitted
that the civil dispute between the parties has not attained
finality. The judgment of this Court in Regular First Appeal
is challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.2512/2018 and till the disposal of the said
appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there cannot be
any change in the revenue records. Hence, he seeks to
dismiss the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
HC-KAR
5. Smt.Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and
2 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and
submits that the contentions urged in the appeal can also
be raised in the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner
and the appellant cannot be allowed to by-pass the
remedy of appeal. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the appeal.
6. We have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for
respondent No.4, the learned AGA and meticulously
perused the material available on record. We have given
our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced on
both sides.
7. The appeal is liable to be allowed for the
following reasons:
a) The facts indicate that the appellant is the owner of the
land bearing Sy.No.369 measuring 2 acres 33 guntas
situated at Kempapura Agrahara, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
HC-KAR
North Taluk, having purchased the same in the year 1968
from Late Sri.Chinnappa, father of the respondent No.4.
b) Late Sri.Chinnappa approached the Tahsildar,
Bengaluru, North Taluk, challenging the revenue entries
effected in the name of the appellant pursuant to the sale
deed. The Tahsildar registered the case as
No.TQ.MPR/56/80-81, conducted inquiry and proceeded to
pass an order dated 16.02.1983 stating that Sri.Chinnappa
has no right or title over the property in view of the
previous sale and rejected the claim.
c) The respondent No.4 claiming to be the daughter of
Sri.Chinnappa filed an appeal assailing the order dated
16.02.1983 in Appeal No.42/1982-83 before the Assistant
Commissioner, Bengaluru Sub-Division, Bengaluru. The
Assistant Commissioner, after conducting a detailed
enquiry, dismissed the appeal vide order dated
23.01.1984.
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
HC-KAR
d) Respondent No.4 had filed a suit in O.S.No.1353/1984
seeking declaration that she is the absolute owner of the
property bearing Sy.No.369 measuring 3 acres situated at
Kempapura Agrahara Village, Bengaluru North Taluk. The
appellant herein was arrayed as a defendant No.1 in the
said suit. The respondent No.4 claims right over the
property through Will dated 29.12.1979 executed by her
mother. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide judgment
dated 17.04.2003.
e) The respondent No.4 challenged the order of the
Assistant Commissioner dated 23.01.1984 in case
No.LND.SPL.D.C(A)3/1986-87 before the Special Deputy
Commissioner (Revenue), Bengaluru District. The said
appeal was dismissed vide order dated 21.07.1988 with an
observation that the parties have filed a civil suit and were
directed to await the outcome of the civil suit. It is to be
noticed that insofar as challenge to the entry of revenue
records in the name of appellant by the father of the
respondent No.4 and the respondent No.4 has attained
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
HC-KAR
finality both in the revenue proceedings as well as the
Court proceedings.
f) One-Smt.Puttamma claiming to be the owner of the
above said property by virtue of a registered gift deed
dated 13.11.1952 claiming to be gifted by her husband
Chikkamuniyappa initiates the revenue proceedings, which
came to be dismissed in view of the dismissal of the suit
filed by respondent No.4 in O.S.No.1353/1984, the order
in the said suit was assailed by the respondent No.4 in
RFA No.1033/2003 and by Smt.Puttamma in RFA
No.958/2003, which were heard together and dismissed.
Smt. Puttamma also filed writ petition before this Court,
which were dismissed with the finding that Smt. Puttamma
did not have right over the property. The challenge of
respondent No.4 as well as Smt.Puttamma with regard to
the revenue entries has attained finality.
g) It is pointed out by the respondent No.4 that the
judgment and decree dated 07.03.2012 in RFA
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
HC-KAR
No.958/2003 c/w RFA No.1033/2003 is assailed before the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.2512/2018. The
memo and the case status produced by the respondent
No.4 do not indicate that there is any interim order in the
matter by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
h) The respondent No.4 suppressing all the revenue
proceedings and the judgment and decree in a civil suit
and the regular first appeal files an application on
05.11.2014 before the respondent No.2 requesting to
enter her name in the revenue records with respect to the
subject property based on the Will dated 29.12.1979
claimed to have been executed by her mother. The
respondent No.2 entertained the said application ignoring
the earlier proceedings, which have attained finality and
without any opportunity to the appellant, ordered to
transfer the revenue entries in the name of respondent
No.4 in respect of the land in question.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
HC-KAR
i) The chronology of the events referred supra clearly
demonstrates that the appellant's name was entered in
the revenue records based on the registered sale deed
executed by the father of the respondent No.4 in respect
of the property in question and challenge to the said entry
in the revenue records by the vendor of the appellant, the
respondent No.4 and by one-Smt.Puttamma has attained
finality before the revenue authorities as well as in the writ
proceedings. It is also to be noticed that the suit filed by
the respondent No.4 for declaration of title and possession
was dismissed, regular first appeal of the respondent No.4
and one-Smt.Puttamma was also dismissed and so far
there is no declaration of ownership of the respondent
No.4 or of Smt.Puttamma by any competent Court. As
things stood thus, surprisingly, the respondent No.2
entertains the application and vide order dated 17.12.2004
ordered to enter the name of the respondent No.4 in the
revenue records. In our considered view, the exercise of
power by the respondent No.2 is in violation of the
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
HC-KAR
principles of natural justice and ignoring the earlier
revenue proceedings and decree in the suit and appeal. In
our view, the exercise of power by the respondent No.2 is
required to be termed as being without jurisdiction as the
issue between the same parties with regard to the revenue
entry has attained finality and the said issue cannot be re-
opened by the respondent No.2 without any change in
circumstances. Hence, we hold that the contention of
alternate remedy raised by the respondents is liable to be
rejected. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks,
Mumbai and Others1 has carved out the exception for
entertaining the petition despite availability of alternate
remedy, the case on hand squarely falls in the exceptions
enumerated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the referred
case. The relegating of the appellant to the appeal remedy
and asking him to file an appeal is unnecessary and we
cannot compel him to stand the ordeal of trial in view of
(1998) 8 SCC 1
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
HC-KAR
finality of the issues between the parties in the aforesaid
proceedings. It is needless to observe that revenue
authorities would be bound by the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the pending Civil Appeal, if any.
8. For the aforementioned reasons, we proceed to
pass the following
ORDER
(i) The appeal is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order dated 23.03.2023
passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.23839/2016 is set aside.
(iii) The writ petition filed by the appellant is
partly allowed.
(iv) The Order dated 17.12.2014 passed in
RRT(K)CR/123/14-15 passed by the
respondent No.2 - Special Tahasildar,
Bangalore North Taluk is set aside.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11850-DB
HC-KAR
(v) The respondent No.2 is directed to restore
the revenue records as they stood prior to
the passing of the Order dated 17.12.2014.
No orders as to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
BSR
List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1
