H M Gangappa Vs State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R2 IN R.P. NO. 125/2015-16 DATED 07/07/2022 ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 4.

¶25

The captioned petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner, thereby directing the revenue authorities to restore the entries in terms of MR.No.2/85-86 duly certified on 29.07.1985.

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:18 WP No. 22649 of 2023

¶28

The subject matter of the petition is agricultural land bearing Sy.No.15/3, measuring 2 acres 25 guntas and Sy.No.14 both situated at Kopadahalli village, Tarikere Taluk. While petitioner asserts that these two lands are his ancestral properties, Private respondent No.5 is tracing title through his mother, Gangamma, who acquired title to an extent of 21 guntas in Sy.No.15/3. Records reveal that respondent No.5's mother's name was mutated to the revenue records to an extent of 21 guntas based on a registered sale deed under MR.No.2/85-86 dated 29.07.1985.

¶29

The petitioner submitted a fresh application requesting to mutate his name in the revenue records by way of inheritance. The authorities, without noting that the mutation is already effected under MR No.2/85-86, entertained the application tendered by the petitioner herein and the authorities appear to have ordered to mutate the name of the petitioner herein under MR

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:18 WP No. 22649 of 2023

¶32

No.7/2005-06. This mutation was challenged by the private respondent No.5.

¶33

Respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner, without examining the core issue regarding the maintainability of a fresh application by private respondent No.5, unless there is a challenge to the mutation effected under MR.No.2/85-86, which was obviously based on a registered sale deed, relegated the private respondent No.5 to approach the civil court to substantiate and establish his title over the petition land measuring 21 guntas in Sy.No.15/3.

¶34

This factual matrix is rightly adverted to by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.2Deputy Commissioner on verifying the records, has taken note of the fact that the private respondent No.5's mother, Gangamma, acquired 21 guntas of land in Sy.No.15/3 and mutation is effected under MR No.2/85-86. Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision and the

¶35

5 -

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:18 WP No. 22649 of 2023

¶37

order passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner

¶38

evidenced at Annexure-B, is set aside.

¶39

Upon a thorough consideration of the

¶40

arguments advanced by the learned High Court Government Pleader (HCGP), this Court finds merit in the contention that the petitioner’s claim regarding the ancestral nature of the petition lands is not supported by sufficient legal action to address the earlier mutation entries. Specifically, it is noted that the petitioner, following the demise of his father, Mallappa, tendered a fresh application seeking changes in the revenue records. This application, however, appears untenable in light of the fact that a mutation had already been effected in 1985 under Mutation Register No.2/85-86, which recorded the name of the respondent No.5's mother in the revenue records for an extent of 21 guntas. Unless and until the petitioner successfully challenges the said mutation of 1985, which was based on registered documents, or secures a declaration of his rights from the appropriate

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:18 WP No. 22649 of 2023

¶43

civil court, his claim cannot be sustained. Consequently, this Court concurs with the findings of respondent No.2Deputy Commissioner, who rightly set aside the disputed mutation bearing No.7/2005-06 on the grounds that it was inconsistent with the earlier certified mutation entries. The Deputy Commissioner’s reasoning aligns with the principle of maintaining the sanctity of the revenue records unless there is a valid legal challenge or adjudication to the contrary.

¶44

In light of the above, this Court is of the opinion

¶45

that no interference is warranted in the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner. However, it is pertinent to clarify that the petitioner retains the liberty to seek appropriate legal remedies. Specifically, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the mutation certified under Mutation Register No.2/85-86, should he find grounds to contest its validity. Furthermore, this Court makes it abundantly clear that there shall be no impediment for the petitioner to approach a competent

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:18 WP No. 22649 of 2023

¶48

civil court to seek a declaration of his rights over the disputed property. Any such proceedings, if initiated, shall be determined in accordance with law, and the observations made herein shall not prejudice the

¶49

adjudication of the petitioner’s claims.

¶50

With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶51

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶52

HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 CT: BHK

H M Gangappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

H M Gangappa v. 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

Smt Sobana S Vs State of Karnataka

The Branch Manager Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Syed Nizam @ Nijamuddin and Anr.

Syed Nizam @ Nijamuddin Vs Deepesh Singh and Anr.

Sri S Narayanaswamy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Shakunthala M Vs Jagadeesh Shetty

Bheemanna Vs State of Karnataka