Dismissed¶60

Sri a Krishnappa v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2025WA/989/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation entries do not confer title; entries only ascertain liability for land revenue; title disputes to be adjudicated by competent civil court. Karnataka High Court (Division Bench: Jayant Banerji and Umesh M Adiga JJ.), WA No. 989 of 2022 (KLR-RES), decided 03.09.2025, NC: 2025:KHC:34537-DB. Keywords: revenue mutation, R.P.No.362/2015-16, Deputy Commissioner Bangalore Urban, W.P.No.12653/2020, Will of Bajappa, Sy.No.125/1 and Sy.No.126/1, Yelahanka Taluk, occupancy rights, fraud allegation, I.A.No.4/2022, Karnataka High Court Act Section 4, appeal dismissed, pending I.As. disposed.

What did the court decide?

Mutation entries do not confer title; they are made only for the purpose of ascertaining which party is liable for payment of land revenue. ¶58

Sri a Krishnappa Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:34537-DB WA No. 989 of 2022

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA WRIT APPEAL NO. 989 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI.A.KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT KODAGALAHATTI VILLAGE, JALA HOBALI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE-562 157.

¶11

…APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI.BHEEMAREDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by K G RENUKAMBA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANSOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

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

¶17

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION,

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34537-DB WA No. 989 of 2022

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶21

THE TAHSILDAR, YELAHANKA TALUK, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.

¶22

SMT BAIYAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT SIDDENAHALLI VILLAGE, SULIBELE POST AND HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-562 114, DEAD BY LR’S.

¶23

5(A). SMT ROJA, D/O ANJINAPPA, W/O ANANDA BABU, R/AT KODAGALAHATTI VILLAGE, JAL HOBALI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BANGALORE-562 157.

¶24

SMT MUNIVENKAKAYAMMA, W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶25

SRI JAGADISH, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34537-DB WA No. 989 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

SRI ANAND BABU, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS,

¶29

SMT. ASHA, D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

¶30

SRI PRASANNA KUMAR, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGEDA ABOUT 26 YEARS,

¶31

SRI KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,

¶32

R6 TO R11 ARE

¶33

R/AT KODAGALAHALLI VILLAGE, H.M.HALLI POST, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-562 157.

¶34

SRI CHIKKA VENKATAPPA, S/O LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT KODAGALAHALLI VILLAGE, H.M.HALLI POST, JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE-562 157.

¶35

SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA REDDY, S/O SRI KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.645, 4^TH FLOOR, 15^TH CROSS, CHAITANYA

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:34537-DB WA No. 989 of 2022

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

TECHNO SCHOOL, VEERANNAPALYA, BANGALORE-560 045.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

(BY SRI.S.H.RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4, V/O DTD 06.10.2022, NOTICE TO R6 TO R12 IS DISPENSED WITH, V/O DTD 02.12.2024 SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R5(A) IS DEEMED COMPLETE, SRI.SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA, FOR SRI.VIGNESHWARA.U, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R11 R13 SERVED AS PER POSTAL TRACK)

¶41

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO (A) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2022 PASSED IN WP NO.12653/2020 (KLR-RES) (B) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2020 IN R.P NO.362/2015-16 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-R TO THE WRIT PETITION (C) ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION.

¶42

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

¶43

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA

¶44

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶45

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶46

I.A.No.4/2022 has been filed in which it has been stated

¶47

that the appellant had not produced the said documents before the learned single Judge, as they were in the possession of the Revenue Authorities and after long time the appellant got

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34537-DB WA No. 989 of 2022

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

certified copy. The application is filed for production of documents. The documents it is stated are to prove that respondent No.5 played fraud to get occupancy rights in favour of the Talavar Jakkappa.

¶51

We perused the order of the learned single Judge.

¶52

After considering the facts, it has been observed in

¶53

the judgment under appeal that the dispute has been raised with regard to revenue entries. It has been observed that the petitioner traces his title only through the legatees of Bajappa.

¶54

Bajappa appears to have executed a Will in respect of Sy.No.125/1 and yet revenue entries were mutated in respect of Sy.No.126/1. It has been observed that the entire claim of the petitioner's title is the Will executed by Bajappa which, as per the Will the title can only be traced to Sy.No.125/1. Thereafter, while rejecting the Writ Petition it has been observed that these revenue entries would be subject to the ultimate result of any litigation which is pending in the Civil suit and the parties obtaining a positive decree would be entitled to get their names entered in the revenue records on the basis of the said decree and the entries now ordered to be mutated as

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:34537-DB WA No. 989 of 2022

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

per order of the Deputy Commissioner would abide by the said decree.

¶58

It is a settled law that mutation entries do not confer

¶59

any title. They are only for the purpose of ascertaining as to which party is liable for payment of land revenue. Matters relating to disputes of title are best adjudicated by the Court of competent jurisdiction. This being the law, we find no error in the order of the learned single Judge that would merit consideration of this appeal.

¶60

This appeal is accordingly dismissed.

¶61

All pending I.As. are disposed of.

¶62

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶63

Sd/(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE

¶64

BVK

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10