[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
R. Srinivas vs Sanjeevappa on 26 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:11878-DB
W.A. No.745/2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.745/2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
R. SRINIVAS
S/O V. RAMANAND
Digitally signed AGED 45 YEARS
by ARSHIFA R/AT. NO.13, SWWC LAYOUT
BAHAR KHANAM BEHIND KEB POWER STATION
Location: HIGH 4TH PHASE, YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
COURT OF BENGALURU 560054.
KARNATAKA
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. MAHENDRA S.S. ADV.,)
AND:
1. SANJEEVAPPA
S/O LATE ANJINAPPA
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT. MYLAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE
HESARAGHATTA HOBLI
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK 560089.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH DIVISION (ADDL)
KANDAYA BHAVAN
BENGALURU 560009.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:11878-DB
W.A. No.745/2023
HC-KAR
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH TALUK (ADDL)
OPP. CANARA BANK
YELAHANKA NEW TOWN
BENGALURU 560064.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
KANDAYA BHAVAN
BENGALURU 560009.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADV., FOR
SMT. VANITHA DEVI V, ADV., FOR R1
SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R2 TO R4)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 11.04.2023 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WRIT PETITION No.10152/2018 (KLR-RR/SUR) IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE. IT IS MOST HUMBLY PRAYED THAT
THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 18.11.2015 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN R.A.
No.(BNA) 587/2014-15 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-K IN THE
WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 23.02.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED
THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:11878-DB
W.A. No.745/2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
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 11.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.10152/2018 (KLR-
RR/SUR) by the learned Single Judge.
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal
are that the appellant is the owner of land bearing
Sy.No.83/2 measuring 1 acre situated at Mylappanahalli
Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. The
respondent No.3-Tahasildar, as per the direction of the
respondent No.2 entered the name of the respondent No.1 in
the revenue records in terms of the compromise decree
dated 25.02.2015 in O.S.No.103/2015. The respondent No.3
altered the records as per the order of the respondent No.2
dated 18.11.2015, wherein the appellant noticed that the
extent of land in his name as per the revenue records in
Sy.No.83/2 was altered from 1 acre to 20 guntas. The
NC: 2026:KHC:11878-DB
HC-KAR
appellant filed a suit in O.S.No.1507/2015 seeking
permanent injunction against the respondent No.1 and
another. The appellant also challenged the order of the
respondent No.2 dated 18.11.2015 before the respondent
No.4 which was dismissed with a finding that the same would
be subject to the outcome of the suit in O.S.No.1507/2015.
The appellant assailed the order passed by the respondent
Nos.2 and 4 before the learned Single Judge in
W.P.No.10152/2018. The learned Single Judge, vide the
impugned order dismissed the petition and held that status
quo should be maintained with regard to the revenue entries
of the land in question subject to the outcome of
O.S.No.1507/2015. Being aggrieved, this appeal is filed.
3. Sri.Mahendra S.S, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has not
considered the material on record in its proper perspective.
It is submitted that the compromise decree in
O.S.No.103/2015 was obtained by fraudulent means and the
appellant was also not a party to the same due to which the
said decree could not have been the sole basis to order for
NC: 2026:KHC:11878-DB
HC-KAR
change in the revenue entries. It is further submitted that
the respondent No.2 directed the respondent No.3 to change
the revenue entries in terms of the compromise decree and
the same was carried out without giving the appellant an
opportunity to be heard. In support of his contentions, he
placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of
ISMAILBEE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS1.
Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal.
4. Per contra, K.N.Nitish, learned counsel for
Smt.Vanitha Devi V., learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 supports the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the learned Single
Judge has rightly considered that the Trial Court in
O.S.No.1507/2015 has passed an interim order protecting
the interests of the appellant and in view of the same, status
quo must be maintained subject to the outcome of the
pending suit in O.S.No.1507/2015. It is further submitted
that the appellant has filed another suit in O.S.No.1336/2018
W.P.No.203889/2024 dt. 20.12.2024
NC: 2026:KHC:11878-DB
HC-KAR
seeking declaration of ownership, declaration that various
instruments of conveyance are not binding, mandatory
injunction, delivery of physical vacant possession and also
permanent injunction along with other reliefs with regard to
20 guntas in question. It is also submitted that in the said
suit, the respondent No.1 is impleaded and until the said suit
is adjudicated on merits and the appellant gets the
declaration, he cannot seek to restore his name in the
revenue records. In support of his contentions, he placed
reliance on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the
case of JAYAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. STATE OF
KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF REVENUE AND OTHERS2. Hence, he seeks to dismiss
the appeal.
5. Smt.Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional
Government Advocate supports the order passed by the
learned Single Judge and seeks to dispose of the appeal by
passing necessary orders.
2020 SCC Online Kar 211
NC: 2026:KHC:11878-DB
HC-KAR
6. We have heard the arguments advanced by the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned
counsel for respondent No.1, the learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State
and perused the material available on record. We have
given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced
on both the sides.
7. The material on record indicates that the
appellant is the owner of land in Sy.No.83/2 measuring 1
acre situated at Mylappanahalli Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli,
Bangalore North Taluk. It is averred that the family
members of the respondent No.1 instituted a suit in
O.S.No.103/2015 seeking for partition in respect of land in
Sy.No.83/2 (New Survey Number 83/5) measuring 20
guntas of land situated at Myllappanahalli Village. The said
suit came to be decreed vide a compromise decree dated
25.02.2015. The respondent No.1 instituted proceedings in
R.A.No.(BNA)587/2014-15 before the respondent No.2
seeking transfer of khatha in the name of respondent No.1
NC: 2026:KHC:11878-DB
HC-KAR
as per the compromise decree. The respondent No.2, as per
the compromise decree directed the respondent No.3 to
transfer the khatha in the name of the respondent No.1. The
said order was challenged before the respondent No.4 and
the same was dismissed holding that the transfer of khatha
would be subject to the outcome of the suit in
O.S.No.1507/2015. The appellant assailed the orders of the
respondent Nos.2 and 4 before the learned Single Judge in
the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the
petition on the ground that there was an interim order
passed in O.S.No.1507/2015 protecting the interests of the
appellant and in view of the same, status quo must be
maintained subject to the outcome of the pending suit.
8. It is to be noticed that the appellant has filed
O.S.No.1336/2018 against one N.Leela Ramesh and others
and the respondent No.1 is impleaded in the said suit. The
appellant has sought a declaration of ownership of 1 acre of
land in Sy.No.83/2 based on the sale deed dated
16.12.2005, sought declaration that various instruments of
conveyance are not binding, sought mandatory injunction
NC: 2026:KHC:11878-DB
HC-KAR
against the defendant No.1 therein, sought direction to the
defendant No.1 to deliver the vacant possession of the 'B'
Schedule property, sought for permanent injunction and
other reliefs. The suit filed by the appellant is a
comprehensive suit against the defendants therein as well as
the respondent No.1 herein. The change of revenue records
by the Authority in favour of the respondent No.1 was
admittedly based on the compromise decree entered into
between the respondent No.1 in O.S.No.103/2015, wherein
the appellant was not a party. The revenue authorities,
without notifying the appellant, in whose name the revenue
records were standing, transferred the entries to the name of
the respondent No.1.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the respondent No.2 ordered for transfer of
khata without giving the appellant an opportunity to object
to the same, which is in violation of the principles of natural
justice. It is trite law that for any change sought to be
carried out in the revenue records, a notice has to be
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11878-DB
HC-KAR
issued and the principles of natural justice have to be
followed. It is also important that the orders with regard
to any such change in the revenue entries shall be passed
only after providing an opportunity of hearing to the other
party in whose name the revenue records were standing.
In the instant case, it is not in dispute that on receipt of
the application from the respondent No.1, the respondent
No.2 neither issued a notice nor gave the appellant an
opportunity to object to the said mutation of records.
Therefore, the orders passed by the respondent No.2 as
well as the respondent No.4 are in violation of the
principles of natural justice.
10. Insofar as the reliance placed by the respondent
No.1 on the decision of this Court in the case of Jayamma
and others referred supra is concerned, the law laid down
in the aforesaid case in not in dispute. In the case on
hand, the dispute raised by the appellant is only with
regard to the change in the revenue entries and not the
title of the property and even the said change in revenue
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11878-DB
HC-KAR
entries will ultimately be subject to the outcome of the
pending suits between the parties. Hence, the aforesaid
case will not help the respondent No.1.
11. Hence, we are of the considered view that the
order passed by the respondent No.2, the order passed by
the respondent No.4 as well as the order passed by the
learned Single Judge in the writ petition are to be
interfered with on the ground that no opportunity of
hearing was given to the appellant.
12. It is again trite law that the revenue entries
would itself not confer any title on the parties and it only
has a presumptive value. The finding recorded by this
Court should not influence the Trial Court in deciding the
civil suits pending between the parties. The change in the
revenue entries will be subject to the outcome of the suits
pending between the parties.
13. For the aforementioned reasons, the writ appeal
is allowed.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:11878-DB
HC-KAR
The impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated
11.04.2023 passed in W.P.No.10152/2023 is set aside. The
writ petition filed by the appellant is allowed.
The orders dated 18.11.2015 and 15.12.2017 passed
by the respondent Nos.2 and 4, respectively, are hereby
quashed.
The respondent No.3 is directed to restore the name of
the appellant in the revenue records as they stood prior to
the passing of the orders of the respondent Nos.2 and 4.
The restoration of the revenue entries in favour of the
appellant would be subject to the outcome of the pending
suits between the parties.
No orders to costs.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
RV
List No.: 5 Sl No.: 1
