Petitioner sought restoration of mutation entries in respect of land purchased by his father, challenging revenue orders interfering with M.R.No.13/1982-83. The court found the mutation was effected pursuant to a registered sale deed and dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to a competent authority for redressal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC:21809 WP No. 3835 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 3835 OF 2014 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. HUCHAPPA S/O LATE BACHAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS KARAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562 110 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. V. PRABHAKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHAKAMBARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2024:KHC:21809 WP No. 3835 of 2014
RESPONDENT NOS.6 TO 8 ARE
RESIDING AT KARAHALLI VILLAGE KUNDANA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT PIN CODE - 562 110
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. H.R. SHRIDHARAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R6, R7 & R9; R8 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.18.12.2013 PASSED BY THE R-2 & R-3 BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION & RESTORE THE ENTIRES IN ALL THE REVENUE RECORDS.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order in R.A.(D) No.9/2006-07 dated 29.11.2008 passed by the respondent No.3 and order dated 18.12.2013 in R.P. No.131/2008-09 passed by respondent No.2, as per Annexures-'J' & 'K' respectively, inter-alia sought for restoring the Mutation entries in favour of the petitioner and respondent No.8.
parties and perused the writ papers.
Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District from Chikkabyamma @ Byamma as per registered sale deed dated 30.08.1962, produced at Annexure-'A'. Pursuant to the same, the name of the father of the petitioner was entered in revenue records as per M.R. No.13/1982-83 and RTC extracts show the name of the father of the petitioner. It is the grievance of the petitioner that, the mutation in M.R.No.13/1982-83 was interfered in revenue proceedings in R.R.T. C.R.No.197/1994-95 as per Annexure-'D' and the said order in M.R. No.13/1982-83 was interfered with by the revenue authorities and same was confirmed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 as per Annexures-'J' & 'K' and being aggrieved by the same, this writ petition is filed.
passed in R.R.T.C.R.No.197/1994-95 and it is also contended that, there is a discrepancy insofar as the measurement of land in question and accordingly, sought for interference of this writ petition.
the property in question and therefore, the observation made by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 requires interference in this writ petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:21809 WP No. 3835 of 2014
Byamma is the mother of the contesting respondents. Mutation has been effected by the revenue authorities and therefore, it is contended that no interference is called for, in this writ petition.
NC: 2024:KHC:21809 WP No. 3835 of 2014
the facts of the case as the MR No.13/1982-83 dated 12.10.1995 has been effected pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 16.01.1960. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, writ petition stands dismissed .
In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, all pending I.As. to this writ petition are disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revenue authorities' orders setting aside mutation M.R.No.13/1982-83 in favour of the petitioner warranted quashing under Articles 226/227.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
N.Vasudevaraju & others v. Dy. Commissioner, Bengaluru District and othersDistinguished¶5
2010 (4) KCCR 3037
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Huchappa S/o Late Bachappa
State of Karnataka by its Chief Secretary
The Dy. Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District
The Asst. Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Dn.
The Tahsildar, Devanahalli
The Dy. Tahsildar, Kundana Nada Kacheri
E.S.Indiresh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
