Sri H P Jayashankar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

ALL APPELLANTS ARE RESIDING AT HUSKUR MAIN ROAD NEAR BASAVESHWARA TEMPLE HUSKURU VILLAGE, HUSKURU POST SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE - 560 099

¶15

…APPELLANTS

¶16

(BY SRI ANANTH KUMAR C., ADVOCATE)

¶17

*Vide Court order dated 26.11.2025, page No.1 has been retyped & replaced

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB WA No. 1061 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AND:

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KHANDAYA BHAVAN K.G. ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009

¶24

THE TAHASILDHAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL - 562 106

¶25

SMT. SUMA W/O LATE H.S. UMESH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶26

SRI THEJESH S/O LATE H.S. UMESH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

¶27

SRI. JAYANTH S/O LATE H.S. UMESH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS

¶28

SRI. BHUSHAN S/O LATE V. SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶29

SRI. VIRUPAKSHA S/O LATE V. SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS

¶30

SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE V SOMANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶31

RESPONDENTS No.3 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT NO.168/1

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB WA No. 1061 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

BEHIND MILK DAIRY HOSKUR VILLAGE AND POST SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE - 560 099

¶36

SMT. CHANDRAKALA D/O LATE SOMMANNA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT NO.176/6 SHANKAR NAG ROAD BEHIND KEB ANEKAL TOWN AND TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT BANGALORE - 562 106

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1 TO 3 SRI GANAPTHI BHAT VAJRALLI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R No.4 TO 10)

¶39

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. No.5853/2024 DATED 21.06.2024 BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL.

¶40

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶42

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶45

The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 21.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this

¶46

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB WA No. 1061 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Court in Writ Petition No.5853/2024 (KLR-RES), whereby the said writ petition was allowed and the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by respondent No.1 (the Deputy Commissioner) in Revision Petition No.236/2023 was set aside. Respondent Nos.4 to 10 had filed the said writ petition challenging the cancellation of the revenue entries.

¶49

The dispute essentially relates to the entries made in the Record of Rights in respect of property measuring 2 acres and 39 guntas falling in Survey No.16/7 situated at Harohalli Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District [ subject property ]. The same also included 1 acre and 2 guntas of kharab land. It is stated that the subject property originally belonged to Sri V. Puttanna Shetty and he had acquired the same by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated 20.07.1949. The copy of the said deed has been placed on record and there is no dispute that the subject property was conveyed to him. After the demise of Sri Puttanna Shetty, the land was mutated in the name of Sri V.Chandranna son of Veeranna. The said change in the entry was subject matter of challenge in an appeal bearing No.RA 413/1969-70, which was preferred by Smt.Vanajakshamma, widow of Late Sri Puttanna

¶50

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB WA No. 1061 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

Shetty. She claimed that the subject land was required to be mutated in her name as the widow of the right holder. However, the same had been changed on the basis of consent letter by forging her signatures. The said appeal was allowed by an order dated 30.08.1969, which reads as under:

¶53

"Perused the records and heard the parties. The respondent 2, Sri Chandranna states in his statement that no consent of the appellant has been obtained at the time of change of khate into his name and the kathe of the lands in question may be made in the name of the appellant as prayed for by her. The appellant stays that while changing the khathe of the land doubtful records have been built up on the fraudulent signatures of Appellant have given consent to change the khate. In the instant the appeal to be genuine ground for the appeal.

¶54

I am of opinion after perusing the records that the signature of the appellant has been forged. Smt. Vanajakshamma denies this signatures. The statement was recorded before the Taluk Sheristedar. The Sheristedar ought to have scrutinised properly. In the circumstances I held the so called consent letter as fraudulent and the change of khata ordered by the Tahsildar is set aside and the Khata is ordered to be made in the name of the appellant."

¶55

By virtue of the said order, the name of Smt.Vanajakshamma was restored in the record of rights.

¶56

6 -

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB WA No. 1061 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

Smt.Vanajakshamma expired on 01.09.2016. Thereafter, the

¶60

entries were subsequently changed on the basis of a Partition Deed dated 16.10.1969. It is material to note that the change in the land record was effected by order dated 11.04.2017 passed by the concerned Tahsildar . The said entries were challenged by the writ petitioners in an appeal, being RA No.769/2022-23 before the Assistant Commissioner. The said appeal was allowed and the mutation entries in respect of the land falling in Survey No.16/7 were set aside in terms of an order dated 29.03.2023.

¶61

The said order indicates that it is premised on the Partition Deed dated 16.10.1969, which was entered into between the heirs of Veeranna (the father of Late Sri Puttanna Shetty). The said partition deed was purportedly executed after the demise of Sri Puttanna Shetty, by his surviving brothers, whereby certain properties were partitioned. The same also included the subject property. Although Smt.Vanajakshamma (the mother of the appellants) was alive, one of the brothers of late Sri Puttanna Shetty had executed the partition deed as a guardian of the appellants (sons of late Shri Puttanna Shetty), who were minors at the material time.

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB WA No. 1061 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

The said order dated 29.03.2023 was challenged by the appellants before the Deputy Commissioner in revision petition bearing No.RP 236/2023 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Revenue Act, 1964. On 09.02.2024, the Revisionary Authority concluded that the writ petitioners did not have any right to get their names mutated in the revenue records. The said order dated 09.02.2024 was impugned by the writ petitioners in the writ petition which was allowed in terms of the impugned order.

¶65

The writ petitioners claim rights on the basis of the Partition Deed. The principal question that arises for consideration is whether name of the writ petitioners could be entered in the land records on the basis of the Partition Deed dated 16.10.1969.

¶66

The documents clearly indicate that the name of the mother of the appellants Smt.Vanajakshamma was entered in the record of rights as a widow of Late Sri Puttanna Shetty. As noted, at the outset, there is no dispute that the subject land had been acquired by Sri Puttanna Shetty by virtue of the registered Sale Deed dated 20.07.1949. It is also evident that an attempt was made to change the land records on the basis of a consent letter purportedly signed

¶67

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB WA No. 1061 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

by Smt.Vanajakshamma. The same was subject matter of challenge and it was found that her signatures have been forged.

¶70

It is apparent that the land records could not have been changed on the basis of the partition deed to which Smt.Vanajakshamma, is not a party.

¶71

Although the appellants are parties to the partition deed, it is noted that they were minors at the material time and the partition deed is signed by one of the brothers of their father on their behalf as a guardian. However, there is no document on record which would indicate that the brother of the appellants' deceased father was appointed as a guardian even while their mother was alive. The only explanation provided for Smt.Vanajakshamma not being a party to the partition deed is that she was absconding at the material time. However, there is no order on record, which substantiates the same. The net result is that the partition deed in question, which had the effect of divesting the property purchased by the appellants' father Sri Puttanna Shetty, was executed by persons who were neither the recorded owners nor had any document establishing their rights, was accepted as the basis for altering the land records.

¶72

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB WA No. 1061 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

It is trite law that the revenue authorities have no power to adjudicate the question as to the title of the immovable property. The entries in the land records are required to be based on the documents of title.

¶75

In the present case, it is difficult to accept that the partition deed effected change in the title of the subject property considering that the same had been entered into after the demise of Late Puttanna Shetty, who was the owner of the subject property by virtue of the Sale Deed dated 20.07.1949 and none of his legal heirs had executed the same. As observed above, in the absence of any order appointing the brother of Late Puttanna Shetty as a guardian of his minor children, execution of the partition deed on behalf of the appellants would be without any authority.

¶76

In view of the above, we are unable to accept that any change could have been effected in the land records on the basis of the partition deed without any order of a competent court.

¶77

It is also material to note that no steps were taken to change the land records on the basis of the partition deed during the lifetime of Smt. Vanajakshamma. The steps to change the land

¶78

10 -

¶79

NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB WA No. 1061 of 2024

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

records were taken after the demise of Smt.Vanajakshamma on 01.09.2016.

¶82

In the given circumstances, we are unable to concur with the

¶83

impugned order. The same is, accordingly, set aside.

¶84

The writ appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

¶85

We, however, clarify that this order is confined to the question of the entries to be made in the land records till the suit filed by the appellant (O.S. No.1032/2023) challenging the partition deed is finally adjudicated. Needless to state that the entries would necessarily have to reflect the outcome of the said suit.

¶86

The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed

¶87

of.

¶88

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶89

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶90

AHB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38

¶91

11 -

¶92

NC: 2025:KHC:44415-DB WA No. 1061 of 2024

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶95

[SRI H P JAYASHANKAR AND OTHERS VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS]

¶96

17.04.2026

¶97

(VIDEO CONFERENCING / PHYSICAL HEARING)

¶98

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and

¶99

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶100

ORAL ORDER

¶101

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶102

ORDER ON I.A.No.1/26

¶103

I.A.No.1/26 is filed seeking rectification of the order dated 04.11.2025, in as much as it refers to O.S.No.1032/2023 in paragraph 17 of the said order, instead of O.S.No.1302/2023. The application is allowed. The para 17 of the said order is rectified to read as under:

¶104

We, however, clarify that this order is confined to the question of the entries to be made in the land records till the suit filed by the appellant (O.S.No.1302/2023) challenging the partition deed is finally adjudicated. Needless to state that the entries would necessarily have to reflect the outcome of the said suit.

¶105

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶106

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶107

SD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19

Sri H P Jayashankar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

Sri H P Jayashankar v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Ammanni Pojarthi Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Hussain Vs Karnataka State Small Industries

Boraiah, Vs Manjanna

The Legal Attorneys and Barristers Law Firm Vs Union of India

Sri.Krishna Murthy Vs Sri.Ravindra

Smt Srividhya Vs State of Karnataka