Smt. Puttamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Smt. Puttamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any scope for interference with the learned Single Judge's judgment and order dated 11.06.2024 in W.P.No.4822/2024, by which the appellant's writ petition against the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 21.11.2023 in Revision Petition No.25/2020 was dismissed. +1 more

Court's answer

Having considered the facts and circumstances, and that the appellant had adopted collusive proceedings by filing a partition suit about the land in question, the Division Bench held there is no scope for interference and dismissed the writ appeal.

Ratio / Principle

The appellant had adopted collusive proceedings by filing a partition suit among family members regarding the disputed land, rather than establishing rights in the civil proceedings directed by the Deputy Commissioner on 21.09.2013; on this footing the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition (with Rs.5,000/- cost for attempting to mislead the Court) was left undisturbed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (KLR-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Division Bench, per D K Singh J.; bench included Tara Vitasta Ganju J.), decided 28.10.2025 — DISMISSED. The appellant (original writ petitioner, Smt. Puttamma, since dead, by LRs) had claimed absolute ownership of land purchased in auction and challenged the Tahsildar's entry of 'Burial Ground' in column No.9 of the RTC (Annexure-D). The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 12.02.2004 (Annexure-E) in an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, set aside that entry; but the Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure-F) in Revision Petition No.25/2020 filed by the contesting respondents (R6–R13), restored the position by setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's order. The learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 11.06.2024 in W.P.No.4822/2024, dismissed the writ petition with a cost of Rs.5,000/- to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, noting that in the earlier round the Deputy Commissioner had, by order dated 21.09.2013, directed the parties to establish their rights in appropriate civil proceedings, and that instead the appellant and family members had filed a collusive partition suit between themselves, thereby trying to mislead the Court. The Division Bench found no scope for interference and dismissed the writ appeal.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43046-DB WA No. 1556 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1556 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SMT. PUTTAMMA

W/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

SRI NARAYANA

S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS NO.27, HALE KUMBARA KOPPALU HEBBALU

MYSURU - 570 002.

…APPELLANT

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. SHRIDHAR NARAYAN HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING

BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT

MYSURU - 570 001.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:43046-DB WA No. 1556 of 2024

HC-KAR

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB DIVISION MYSURU - 570 001.

THE TAHSILDAR MYSURU TALUK

MYSURU - 570 001.

THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT KESARE, KASABA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK - 570 001.

SRI D MAHADEVU S/O LATE DODDAIAH MAJOR

SRI MUDDEGOWDA S/O LATE CHIKKACHANNEGOWDA MAJOR

SRI RAJASHETTY S/O THIMMASHETTY MAJOR

SRI MAHADEVU S/O LATE MADAPPA

MAJOR

SRI C SHANKAR

S/O LATE CHANNEGOWADA MAJOR

SRI MARIRAJU S/O LATE KARIYAPPA MAJOR

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43046-DB WA No. 1556 of 2024

HC-KAR

SRI S M SIDDEGOWDA S/O MARIGOWDA MAJOR

SRI RAMANNA S/O LATE RANGABHOVI MAJOR

RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 13 ARE R/O IDDALINGAPURA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 002.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAED JAFFER SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5

SRI. A. MADHUSUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R13)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO a) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 4822/2024 (KLR-RES) b) CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER/APPELLANT HEREIN, AND QUASH THE ORDER DATED 21.11.2023 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ANNEXURE-F c) GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFs AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43046-DB WA No. 1556 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11.06.2024 passed in W.P.No.4822/2024 by the learned Single Judge in the petition filed by the appellant herein.

The petitioner had impugned the order dated 21.11.2023 passed in Revision Petition No.25/2020 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner; thereby, the revision petition filed by the contesting respondents was allowed.

The facts as noted in paragraph No.2 of the impugned judgment read as under:

"2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of this writ petition are that, the petitioner claims to be absolute owner in possession of the land in question having purchased the land in auction proceedings, and thereafter, his name has been reflected in the revenue records. It is stated by the petitioner that, the respondent No.4, by passing the order at Annexure-D entered name as Burial Ground in the column No.9 of RTC and feeling aggrieved by the same the same the petitioner has preferred appeal before respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner under Section

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43046-DB WA No. 1556 of 2024

HC-KAR

136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Respondent No.3, by order dated 12.02.2004 (AnnexureE), allowed the application filed by the petitioner and set aside the orders passed by respondent No.4-Thasildar, entering the name of burial ground in the RTC extracts. Being aggrieved by the same, revision petition was filed before the respondent No.2 in RPNo.25 of 2020 and the respondent No.2 by order dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure-F) allowed the revision petition filed by the contesting respondents and as such, set aside the order dated 12.02.2004 (Annexure-E) passed by the respondent No.3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

The learned Single Judge, after considering the documents produced by the parties in their pleadings and after hearing the parties, has come to the conclusion that in the earlier round of proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 21.09.2013, directed the parties to establish their rights over the land in question in appropriate civil proceedings. It appears that instead of filing the civil suit to establish their respective rights, the appellant and other members of the family filed a suit between themselves seeking partition of the land in dispute. As the appellant herein tried to mislead the Court, his petition has been dismissed with a cost of Rs.5,000/-

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:43046-DB WA No. 1556 of 2024

HC-KAR

to be paid by the appellant to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and that the appellant had adopted collusive proceedings by filing a partition suit about land in question, we are of the view that there is no scope for interference and therefore, the writ appeal is dismissed .

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE

HDK CT-SG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment and order dated 11.06.2024 of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.4822/2024 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, with a cost of Rs.5,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.¶¶55
High Court of Karnataka (learned Single Judge) · 11.06.2024
Prior proceeding
Appellant claimed to be absolute owner in possession of the land, having purchased it in auction proceedings, with her name reflected in revenue records.¶¶58
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.4 (Tahsildar) entered the name 'Burial Ground' in column No.9 of the RTC by order at Annexure-D.¶¶58
Prior proceeding
Appeal before respondent No.3 (Assistant Commissioner) under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; by order dated 12.02.2004 (Annexure-E) the Assistant Commissioner allowed the petitioner's application and set aside the Tahsildar's order entering 'burial ground' in the RTC extracts.¶¶61
Prior proceeding
Contesting respondents filed Revision Petition No.25/2020 before the Deputy Commissioner (respondent No.2), who by order dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure-F) allowed the revision and set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 12.02.2004 (Annexure-E); the petitioner then filed the writ petition impugning that revision order.¶¶61
Prior proceeding
The writ petition impugned the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 21.11.2023 passed in Revision Petition No.25/2020, whereby the revision petition of the contesting respondents was allowed.¶¶56
Prior proceeding
In the earlier round of proceedings, the Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 21.09.2013, directed the parties to establish their rights over the land in appropriate civil proceedings.¶¶62
Prior proceeding
Instead of filing the civil suit to establish their respective rights, the appellant and other family members filed a partition suit between themselves seeking partition of the disputed land.¶¶62
Prior proceeding
Finding that the appellant had tried to mislead the Court, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition with a cost of Rs.5,000/-.¶¶62
Prior proceeding
The cost of Rs.5,000/- imposed by the learned Single Judge was directed to be paid by the appellant to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.¶¶66
Prior proceeding
This writ appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to (a) set aside the Single Judge's order dated 11.06.2024 in WP No. 4822/2024 (KLR-RES), (b) allow the writ petition and quash the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 21.11.2023 (Annexure-F), and (c) grant such other reliefs as deemed fit.¶¶46