Smt Malligamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Smt Malligamma Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed in part; the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 04.08.2014 (Annexure-B) and the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 26.07.2016 (Annexure-A) quashed only to the extent of directing the parties to file a suit for declaration; cancellation of mutation entry M.R.No.183/2010-11 stands subject to the result of O.S.No.234/2013.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Assistant Commissioner could direct the parties to approach the Civil Court seeking relief of declaration when a civil suit (O.S.No.234/2013) in respect of the same mutation entry was already pending between the same parties. +1 more

Court's answer

Since a civil suit was already pending between respondents 5 to 8 and the petitioners in respect of the same mutation entry, the Assistant Commissioner ought not to have passed the order directing the parties to approach the Civil Court seeking relief of declaration.

Ratio / Principle

The Deputy Commissioner, in revision, affirmed the Assistant Commissioner's order without applying his mind in respect of the direction to the parties to approach the Civil Court.

Key takeaways

The writ petition is allowed in part: the order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Annexure-B) and the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-A) are quashed to the extent of directing the parties to file a suit for declaration.ratio¶59
As regards the cancellation of the mutation entry in M.R.No.183/2010-11, it is made clear that the same would be subject to the result of the suit in O.S.No.234/2013.ratio¶59

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru (Rajesh Rai K, J.), 10.11.2025 — Writ petition under Article 227 by the LRs of Smt Malligamma and Smt Jayamma against the order dated 04.08.2014 of the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division in RRT (A) 35/2012-13 (filed by respondents 5 to 8) cancelling the mutation in M.R.No.183/2010-11 and directing both parties to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration, as confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore by order dated 26.07.2016 in Revision Application No.22/2014-15. Held: since suit O.S.No.234/2013 (Sy.No.259/1, 33 guntas, Mandakalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk) was already pending between the same parties in respect of the same mutation entry, the Assistant Commissioner ought not to have directed the parties to approach the Civil Court for declaration; the Deputy Commissioner affirmed that direction without applying his mind. Writ petition allowed in part: both orders quashed to the extent of the direction to file a suit for declaration; the cancellation of the mutation entry in M.R.No.183/2010-11 is made subject to the result of O.S.No.234/2013.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45819 WP No. 53552 of 2016

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

WRIT PETITION NO. 53552 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

SMT MALLIGAMMA

(SINCE DEAD REP BY HER LRS)

1(a) MAHADEVAMMA W/O NANJUNDASWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.28, GEJJAGALLI, MANDAKALI POST, KADAKOLA, MYSORE KARNATAKA - 571 311.

Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

1(b) BASAVANNA S/O LATE MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NO.2, GEJJAGALLI, MANDAKALI POST KADAKOLA, MYSORE KARNATAKA-571 311.

1(c) ANANDA M S/O LATE MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS NO.2, GEJJAGALLI, MANDAKALI POST KADAKOLA, MYSORE KARNATAKA-571 311.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:45819 WP No. 53552 of 2016

HC-KAR

SMT JAYAMMA WIFE OF LATE VEERABHADRAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT GEJJAGALLI VILLAGE MANDAKALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. P.K SHRIKARA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB-DIVISION, MYSORE

TAHSILDAR MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE

SMT PUTTAMMANNI WIFE OF S MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

SRI MANJUNATH SON OF S MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

SMT DRAKSHAYANI DAUGHTER OF S MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS

SRI RAJASHEKARA SON OF S MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:45819 WP No. 53552 of 2016

HC-KAR

THE RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE RESIDENTS OF GEJJAGALLI VILLAGE, MANDAKALLI POST, KASABA HOBLI, MYSORE TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-R4, SRI. P.L. RAJESH, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R8)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 26.07.2016 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN REVISION APPLICATION NO.22/2014-15 CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY R-3 IN RRT (A) 35/2012-13 DTD 04.08.2014 VEDE AND CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DTD 04.08.2014 PASSED IN RRT (A) 35/2012-13 BY THE R-3 AND THEREBY ALLOW THE W.P.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking following relief:

i) pass an order in the nature of an order of certiorari or any other order of like nature quashing the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 in Revision Application No.22/2014-15 confirming the order passed by respondent No.3 in RRT (A) 35/2012-13 dated

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:45819 WP No. 53552 of 2016

HC-KAR

04.08.2014 (vide Annexure-A) and consequently quashing the order dated 04.08.2014 (vide Annexure-B) passed in RRT (A) 35/2012-13 by the respondent No.3 and thereby allow the Writ Petition;

ii) direct the respondents No. 2 to 4 restore the MR No.183/2010-11 in respect of the schedule property;

iii) to pass such other relief as the Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the above case.

The grievance of the petitioners is that there is a suit in O.S.No.234/2013 pending in respect of Sy.No.259/1 measuring 33 guntas situated in Mandakalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Mysore Taluk, against the petitioners for the relief of declaring the mutation order passed in M.R.No.183/2010-11 as null and void and for consequential perpetual injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the Assistant Commissioner has passed an order

dated 04.08.2014 in RRT (A) 35/2012-13 filed by respondents 5 to 8 by cancelling the mutation in

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:45819 WP No. 53552 of 2016

HC-KAR

M.R.No.183/2010-11 and also directing both the parties to

approach the Civil Court seeking declaration. The said order was challenged by the petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Application No.22/2014-15, wherein the Deputy Commissioner affirmed the said order.

Being aggrieved by the portion of the said order i.e., direction for filing a suit seeking declaration by both the parties, the petitioners are before this Court.

Heard Sri P.K.Shrikara, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners, Sri Neelakantappa K.Pujar, learned HCGP for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri P.L.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing for respondents 5 to 8.

On careful perusal of the records, it could be gathered that the Assistant Commissioner while passing the impugned order has observed that there is a civil suit pending between respondents 5 to 8 and the petitioners in respect of aforesaid mutation entry and for consequential relief of perpetual injunction. Such being the position, the

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:45819 WP No. 53552 of 2016

HC-KAR

Assistant Commissioner ought not to have passed the order directing the parties to approach the Civil Court seeking relief of declaration. On appeal, the Deputy Commissioner has also affirmed the said order without applying his mind in respect of said portion of the order.

The petitioners fairly submit that they have no grievance in respect of cancellation of mutation entry since the same was the subject matter of suit pending for consideration before the Civil Court. In such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioners required to be considered. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part . The order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide Annexure-B and the order dated 26.07.2016 passed the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A are quashed to the extent of directing the parties to file a suit for declaration. However, as regards cancellation of aforesaid mutation entry in M.R.No.183/2010-11 is concerned, it is made clear that

7 -

NC: 2025:KHC:45819 WP No. 53552 of 2016

HC-KAR

the same would be subject to the result of suit in

O.S.No.234/2013.

SD/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36