Sri Nataraj K Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sri Nataraj K Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the appeal was dismissed and the Single Judge's directions and the Deputy Commissioner's order stand, with the revenue entries in favour of the respondent made subject to the final outcome of the pending suit.

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 10.07.2025 of the Single Judge in WP.No.32530/2024, upholding the Deputy Commissioner's revisional order and directing maintenance of the revenue entries in favour of the respondent, called for interference in this writ appeal.

Court's answer

No interference is warranted with the impugned judgment of the Single Judge or the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner; the writ appeal is dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

The revenue entries in favour of the respondent would be subject to the final outcome of the pending suit between the parties, and any observation made in this order is not to be treated as a final determination of the question of right and title of the parties in respect of the land in question.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal No. 1384 of 2025 (KLR-RES), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Division Bench; per D K Singh J., with T M Nadaf J.), decided 08.04.2026 — Appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 against the Single Judge's dismissal (10.07.2025) of WP.No.32530/2024, which had upheld the Deputy Commissioner's revisional order dated 30.09.2024 in RP.No.101/2024 setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 08.12.2022 deleting the private respondent's mutation over 3 acres in Sy.No.108 (new Sy.No.129), Avalahalli Village, Yelahanka Taluk. Mutations traced to Jayalakshmamma (MR.No.37/2004-05) and, after her death in 2011, to the respondent (MR.No.31/2011-12); the appellants approached the Assistant Commissioner only after about 8 years. Division Bench dismissed the appeal, clarifying that the revenue entries in the respondent's favour remain subject to the final outcome of the pending civil suit and that its observations are not a final determination of right and title.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19426-DB WA No. 1384 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1384 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. NATARAJ K., S/O LATE KRISHNAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.

SRI. K. GOPALA GOWDA

SINCE DECEASED, REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS.

SMT. KAVITHA, W/O LATE K. GOPAL GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS.

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

MASTER. ASHWIN, S/O LATE K. GOPAL GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS.

MASTER. ARYAN, S/O LATE K. GOPAL GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 3 YEARS

SINCE PETITIONER NO. 3 & 4 ARE MINORS,REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL GUARDIAN PETITIONER NO.2

THE ABOVE MENTIONED APPELLANTS ARE R/AT: AVALAHALLI VILLAGE,

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:19426-DB WA No. 1384 of 2025

HC-KAR

SINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 064.

…APPELLANTS

(BY SRI. R.S. RAVI SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AKARSH KUMAR GOWDA., ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 001.

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

SRI. GOPALAGOWDA. A., S/O LATE G. ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.

SRI. A. KESHAVA MURTHY, S/O LATE G. ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

SRI. A. RAVI SHANKAR, S/O LATE G. ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

THE RESPONDNET NO. 4 TO 6 ARE RESIDING AT AVALAHALLI VILLAGE, SINGANAYAKANAHALLI POST, YELAHANKA HOBLI AND TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 064.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.G.S. ARUNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3, SRI. H.S. RAMAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19426-DB WA No. 1384 of 2025

HC-KAR

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:10.07.2025 MADE IN WP NO.32530/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ETC.,

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL JUDGMENT

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

This writ appeal is filed impugning the judgment and order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the writ Court in WP.No.32530/2024.

The name of Jayalakshmamma, late mother of the respondent was mutated in respect of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.129 in proceedings MR.No.37/2004-05. Jayalakshmamma died in 2011 and on her death, the name of the respondent being the son and legal heir got mutated against the said land in proceedings MR.No.31/2011-12.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19426-DB WA No. 1384 of 2025

HC-KAR

The appellant has never challenged the

mutation in the name of late Jayalakshmamma during her lifetime and even the name of the respondent till he files an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner after 8 years

from the date when the name of the respondent got mutated in place of his late mother. The Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated 08.12.2022, directed for deletion of the name of the respondent from the record, in respect of 3 acres of land in Survey No.129, which was mutated in his name after the demise of his mother in the year 2011 and it remained for 8 long years before the appellant approached the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner therefore, interfered with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner vide the order dated 30.09.2024 passed in RP.No.101/2024. The said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Bangalore North, Sub-Division pertaining to the land measuring 3

acres in survey No.108 (new Sy.No.129) of Avalahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk and held the

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19426-DB WA No. 1384 of 2025

HC-KAR

order passed by the Assistant Commissioner contrary to

the rules and allowed the revision.

It was further directed that the remaining

entries to be restored as existed before the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

The said order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner was challenged by the appellant by filing the writ petition. However, the writ petition has been dismissed and the writ Court has directed for maintaining the revenue entries as directed by the Deputy Commissioner, until the suit is finally decided.

We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, we dismiss this appeal. We make it clear that the revenue entries in favour of the respondent would be subject to the final outcome of pending suit between the parties and any observation made in the order passed by this Court would not be

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:19426-DB WA No. 1384 of 2025

HC-KAR

treated as final determination on question of right and title

of the parties in respect of land in question.

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

PK

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25; ct-vn