Smt. Jayamma Vs the State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4327-DB WA No. 1370 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO. 1370 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SMT. JAYAMMA W/O LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/A MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK – 577 301. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶13

…APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. CHETHAN A C, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶18

MRS. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE MASTHI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 88 YEARS

¶19

R/A MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK – 577 301 SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:4327-DB WA No. 1370 of 2025

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SIR MV ROAD, SAVALANGA ROAD SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHIVAMOGGA SUB DIVISION, BALARAJ URS ROAD, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.

¶24

THE TAHSILDAR, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, JAI BHEEM NAGAR, BHADRAVATHI – 577 301. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶25

SMT. THIMMAMMA W/O LATE KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS R/A MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK – 577 301. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶26

S.RAMESH, S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A MAVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI BHADRAVATHI TALUK – 577 301. SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1, R3-R5; SRI. D BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R7; R6 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 12.06.2025 IN WP No. 15969/2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT HEREIN AND ETC.,

¶29

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

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4327-DB WA No. 1370 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶33

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶34

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶35

The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the appellant / petitioner, impugning the order dated 12.06.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.15969/2025.

¶36

The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the writ petition, for the sake of convenience.

¶37

The petitioner had filed the writ petition assailing the order of the Deputy Commissioner / respondent No.3 dated 31.07.2023 passed in R.A.No.88/2022 and the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Shivamogga Sub-Division in PDA.No.223/2021-22.

¶38

3(i) It appears that the husband of the petitioner was the owner of some lands. The petitioner's husband, during his lifetime, had executed sale deeds in favour of different persons. The petitioner had filed the Original Suit No.18/2024 for a decree of mandatory injunction, to cancel the sale deeds

¶39

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:4327-DB WA No. 1370 of 2025

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

executed by her husband way back in 1973. The husband of the petitioner had died on 31.10.2000. However, the suit was filed in the year 2024, which is pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bhadravati.

¶42

The learned counsel for the appellant / petitioner submits that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner cancelling the katha in the name of the appellant are illegal, inasmuch as they are based on the sale deeds, which are the subject matter of the Original Suit No.18/2024.

¶43

Considering the fact that it was the petitioner's husband who executed the sale deeds in favour of different persons in 1973, and that he never challenged the sale deeds during his lifetime, while the petitioner filed the suit only in 2024, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶44

Whether the petitioner has title over the lands

¶45

cannot be decided by the revenue authorities or by this Court in the writ petition. The revenue authorities make entries based

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:4327-DB WA No. 1370 of 2025

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

on the relevant records without inquiring into the question of title. Even otherwise, the revenue entries do not confer the title on a person; but only a record is maintained in the name of the person. If the petitioner claims title over the land, she should agitate her rights in appropriate proceedings. However, no writ petition can be entertained for the purpose of declaring the title of a person over the land or the property.

¶49

Therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is, therefore, dismissed .

¶50

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending application

¶51

does not survive for consideration and it is also disposed of.

¶52

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶53

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶54

Bss

¶55

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22