Sri Y Nanjappa Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI Y MANJUNATHA S/O LATE S V YALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT NO 23, 3RD CROSS, SOMESHWARA NAGARA, JAYANAGARA 1ST BLOCK, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE 560011

¶35

…RESPONDENTS

¶36

(BY SRI.MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4 SRI. K.C. RAVINDRA BABU., ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6 V/O/D.29.03.2023, NOTICE TO R7 IS D/W)

¶37

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 17.02.2023 PASSED BY THE R- 2/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT AT BANGALORE DIST IN R.P.NO.94/2022-23 VIDE AT ANNX-A AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 23.09.2021 PASSED BY THE R- 3/ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH SUBDIVISION AT BANGALORE LIN R.A(A)NO.532/2021 VIDE AT ANNX-F AND ETC.

¶38

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶39

4 -

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:28953 WP No. 6055 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶43

ORAL ORDER

¶44

The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 17.02.2023 at Annexure ‘A’ passed by the second respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, rejecting the revision petition filed by the petitioners and the order dated 23.09.2021 at Annexure ‘F’ passed by the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru South Sub-Division, Bengaluru.

¶45

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the private respondents herein have filed O.S.No.675/2012 seeking partition and separate

¶46

possession of 1/3^rd share in respect of the suit schedule properties. The said suit is pending consideration before the learned Prl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Anekal. Even as the said suit is pending, the private respondents herein filed two different appeals before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.(A)Nos.351/2021 and 532/2021.

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:28953 WP No. 6055 of 2023

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Learned Counsel submits that the petitioners

¶50

received the notice in R.A.(A)No.351/2021 and they have appeared before the Assistant Commissioner. However, the petitioners were kept in dark in respect of the other appeal and clandestinely an order is obtained at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner where only the Tahsildar is made respondent. The Assistant Commissioner accepted the contention of the private respondents herein that Sri Mestri Venkatappa has left behind a registered Will dated 02.04.1950, wherein he has stated that the Will shall be treated as a family settlement and property will be distributed amongst Narasimaiah S/o Late Dodda Puttaiah and Lakshmamma D/o late Chikka Puttaiah and after the death of Narasimaiah and Lakshmamma, the private respondents herein shall enjoy the property and get their names mutated in the revenue records. The appeal filed

¶51

before the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed on the ground that the suit in O.S. No.675/2012 is still pending consideration before the Civil Court and therefore the

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:28953 WP No. 6055 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

Deputy Commissioner directed the petitioners herein to

¶56

get the matter settled in the said suit.

¶57

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that it is a well settled position of law that revenue authorities are not permitted to decide questions of title. This Court has also laid down the procedure in cases where Wills are brought before the revenue authorities. This Court has directed that notice shall be issued to all concerned and objections shall be called for. If the concerned parties appear before the Revenue Authority and give their consent to mutate the revenue records in terms of the Will, only then the revenue authorities can proceed to mutate the revenue records in terms of the Will. On the other hand, if objections are raised from any quarters, the aggrieved party should be directed to approach the competent Civil Court to get a declaration of title.

¶58

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsels for the contesting respondents and the learned AGA and perused the petition papers.

¶59

7 -

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:28953 WP No. 6055 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Learned AGA has furnished a copy of the order dated 25.01.2023 passed by this Court in W.P.No.421/2023 where this Court has noticed the procedure to be followed by the Tahsildar as prescribed in Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before considering such a request based on a Will.

¶63

Consequently, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned orders dated 17.02.2023 and 23.09.2021 at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘F’ passed by the second respondentDeputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and the third respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru SubDivision, Bengaluru respectively are hereby quashed and set aside. The revenue entries shall be restored as it was prior to the impugned orders.

¶64

The parties are at liberty to get the declaration of title. If the respondents are seeking to place reliance on a particular Will, then they should seek such a declaration in

¶65