Smt Gowramma Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 16.09.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION No.429/2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) & ETC.

¶34

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

¶35

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

¶36

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶37

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

¶38

Issue notice.

¶39

Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned Additional Government

¶40

Advocate, accepts notice for the respondents.

¶41

For the reasons stated in the application – I.A.No.2/2025, the same is allowed.

¶42

The appellants have filed the present appeal, impugning an order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.429 of 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR). The said writ petition was

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46220-DB WA No. 1720 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

preferred by respondent No.5, inter alia praying that directions be issued to respondent No.4 (Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk), to consider the representation dated 13.11.2019 and to continue the name of the writ petitioner in the RTC by implementing the orders passed by respondent No.3 (The Assistant Commissioner), in respect of land measuring 1 acre 22 guntas falling in Survey No.22, Lagumenahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk [' subject land ']. The writ petitioner's grievance was confined to the revenue records being altered to reflect the name of "Sarakari Gunduthopu" in the RTC records with respect to the subject land. The writ petitioner claims that her name was entered in the revenue records pursuant to the mutation order bearing No.M.R.3/1978-79. However, some time in 1988-89, her name was removed from the revenue records and the name of "Sarakari Gunduthopu" was entered in the RTC.

¶46

Apparently, this is premised on the basis that the subject land had been acquired and therefore is vested with the Government. It is to be noted that the writ petitioner had prior to filing the present writ petition, filed a writ petition being W.P.No.48540/2014, which was disposed of by an order dated

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46220-DB WA No. 1720 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

25.11.2014, with liberty to the writ petitioner to agitate her grievance before the statutory authority. Pursuant to the liberty granted, the writ petitioner had filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner (Respondent No.3) being R.A (BE) No. 130 of 2018, seeking restoration of the mutation entry in the RTC. The said appeal was allowed in terms of an order dated 23.10.2019 directing the name of the writ petitioner to be restored in the RTC.

¶50

In the given circumstances, the only question that fell for consideration of the learned Single Judge was, whether the name of the writ petitioner could be removed from the RTC and be replaced by "Sarakari Gunduthopu" without the writ petitioner being served any notice and without any order. The learned Single Judge concluded that the grant in favour of the writ petitioner was never cancelled in a manner known to law and therefore, the steps taken by the revenue authorities to remove the name of the writ petitioner and replace the same with the words "Sarakari Gunduthopu" in the revenue records, was wholly unjustified.

¶51

The learned Single Judge also noted that the Tahsildar had filed a revision petition challenging the order dated 23.10.2019

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46220-DB WA No. 1720 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

passed by the Assistant Commissioner allowing the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner. However, the Court concluded that the revision petition filed by the Tahsildar before the Special Deputy Commissioner, would be without any authority of law. The learned Single Judge was persuaded to make the said observations on the assumption that it was not disputed that the grant made in favour of the writ petitioner had not been denied by the concerned authorities and the same had not been set aside, in a manner known to law.

¶55

The appellants – who were not parties to the writ petition – are not aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge directing removal of the name "Sarakari Gunduthopu" from the RTC records. They are aggrieved by the entries restored in the name of the writ petitioner. There are inter se disputes between the writ petitioner and the appellants. And, the appellants claim rights in respect to the subject land pursuant to a partition effected in terms of a judgment and decree dated 30.05.1975 in O.S.No.49/1973.

¶56

It is also stated that the appellants have filed a revision petition (being R.P.No.338/2019-20) impugning the order dated

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2025:KHC:46220-DB WA No. 1720 of 2025

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

23.10.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner [being R.A.(BE)

¶61

No.130/2018].

¶62

As is apparent from the facts narrated above, the issue regarding the inter se disputes between the appellants and respondent No.5 (writ petitioner), was not subject matter of consideration by the learned Single Judge. The order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be read so as to affect any right of the appellants. The import to the impugned order is that the change in the revenue entries by removing the name of the writ petitioner and inserting the name of "Sarakari Gunduthopu", was not in accordance with law. Therefore, the learned Single Judge has merely directed that the entries as existed prior to the said alteration, be restored. This, however, would not affect the appellants' rights in any manner. It is equally obvious that the same cannot be agitated in this appeal.

¶63

If the appellants succeed in securing any order from the Civil Court or the concerned authorities, the impugned order would not stand in the way of the appellants for insisting on change of

¶64

8 -

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:46220-DB WA No. 1720 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

revenue entries. All rights of the appellants as well as the writ petitioner in this regard, are reserved.

¶68

We also clarify that we have not examined the merits of the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge and therefore, this

¶69

order would not foreclose the remedies as may be available to respondent No.4, in the event the said authority seeks to challenge the impugned judgment.

¶70

The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶71

Pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶72

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶73

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

¶74

KS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13

Smt Gowramma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Gowramma v. the State of Karnataka

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

M/S J K Service Station Vs the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

The State of Karnataka Vs Mr. Ramanatha Shetty

Buyhatke Internet Private Limited Vs Sujith Mahadeva

M/S Apple Stone Crushers, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Vijay B Ramnani Vs Quazi Razal Ahmad

Smt Sowbhagya Vs Dr M R Ravi