Dismissed¶59

Sri Siddagangaiah v. Sri. G. Kempaiah

Writ Appeal (KLR-RR/SUR) – mutation of revenue records

Karnataka HC23 Apr 2026WA/1454/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench dismisses writ appeal against Single Judge order refusing mutation based on 1944 sale deed; keywords: mutation of land records, khata, RTC entries since 1968-69, Sy.No.100/1 Lakkur Village Nelamangala, Deputy Commissioner order set aside, Deputy Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner orders restored, entries subject to O.S. No.58/2009 declaration of title suit, Section 4 Karnataka High Court Act 1961, WA 1454/2025, judgment dated 23.04.2026, bench D K Singh and T.M. Nadaf.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants: the writ petition stands dismissed; pending I.A.s, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly. ¶59

Sri Siddagangaiah Vs Sri. G. Kempaiah — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants: the writ petition stands dismissed; pending I.A.s, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of accordingly.

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the name of the appellant/respondent No.5, absent from the revenue record from 1944 till 2009, could lawfully be mutated on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 17.01.1944, given that the writ petitioners' names appeared in the RTCs from 1968-1969 onwards. +1 more

¶46

Court's answer

The learned Single Judge was right in holding that the appellant/respondent No.5's name cannot be mutated, his name having found no place in the revenue record from 1944 till 2009 despite the claim resting on the sale deed dated 17.01.1944.

¶53

Ratio / Principle

The appellant/respondent No.5's name shall not be mutated until the original suit O.S.No.58/2009 is decided and a decree is passed in his favour.

¶56

Key takeaways

Endorsing the learned Single Judge's clarification, the revenue entries in the names of the writ petitioners Kempaiah and Gurusiddaiah remain subject to the final outcome of O.S.No.58/2009.ratio¶57
The Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, and the writ petition stands dismissed.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (KLR-RR/SUR) - mutation of revenue records - land Sy.No.100/1, Lakkur Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District - appellant claimed mutation on a registered sale deed dated 17.01.1944 but applied only in 2009; khata/RTC stood in the name of Ganganna and thereafter the writ petitioners Kempaiah and Gurusiddaiah from 1968-69 onwards - Division Bench (D K Singh and T.M. Nadaf JJ) upheld the learned Single Judge's order setting aside the Deputy Commissioner's direction to mutate the appellant's name and restoring the orders of the Deputy Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner - appellant's name not to be mutated till disposal of O.S.No.58/2009 (declaration of title suit) - revenue entries in favour of the petitioners expressly subject to the result and decree of O.S.No.58/2009 - writ petition dismissed; appeal filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:22368-DB WA No. 1454 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 1454 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI SIDDAGANGAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶12

SMT. MUNIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, W/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH,

¶13

SRI. BASAVARAJU, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH,

¶14

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

SRI. REVANASIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH,

¶16

SRI. SOMASHEKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH,

¶17

SRI. GANGADAR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O LATE SIDDAGANGAIAH,

¶18

APPELLANTS 1 TO 5 ALL R/AT: LAKKUR TOTA, LAKKUR GARDEN, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.

¶19

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:22368-DB WA No. 1454 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT. RAJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O SRI. SHIVANNA, TIPPUR VILLAGE, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 216.

¶22

SMT. GANGAMMA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O SRI. T.V. GOVINDARAJU, NO.214, GUDIPALYA, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.

¶23

…APPELLANTS

¶24

(BY SRI. VIVEK B.N. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A. ABHINAV RAMANAND., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶25

SRI. G. KEMPAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, S/O SRI. GANGANNA,

¶26

SRI. GURUSIDDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O SRI. GANGANNA

¶27

BOTH ARE R/AT: LAKKUR GARDEN, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.

¶28

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

¶29

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:22368-DB WA No. 1454 of 2025

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶32

The ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.

¶33

THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, NADA KACHERI, SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123.

¶34

…RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶36

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP NO.1264/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED:24.04.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.1264/2017 AND CONSEQUENTLY, REJECT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 2 - PETITIONERS IN WP NO.1264/2017(KLR-RR/SUR) AND ETC.

¶37

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

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶39

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

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:22368-DB WA No. 1454 of 2025

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶44

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

¶45

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 24.04.2025 passed by the Writ Court in WP.No.1264/2017.

¶46

The appellant has filed an application for mutating their names with respect to the land bearing Sy.No.100/1 of Lakkur Village, Sompura Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The application was filed in the year 2009. Thus, from 1944 till 2009, the appellant/respondent No.5 did not take any step to get his name mutated in respect of the said land on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 17.01.1944. Whereas the petitioners name was found in the RTCs from 1968-1969 till date. Despite this enormous delay by the appellant/respondent No.5, the Deputy Commissioner has directed the mutation of the name of the appellant/respondent No.5 in the revenue record in respect to the said land on the ground that the appellant/respondent No.5 or his predecessor in interest had purchased the property vide sale deed dated 17.01.1944.

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:22368-DB WA No. 1454 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

It may be taken note of the fact that the appellant/respondent No.5 has already filed an original suit in OS.No.58/2009 for a declaration of title in his favour. The learned Single Judge has therefore allowed the Writ Petition in terms of paragraph Nos.6 and 7 of the impugned judgment, which reads as are follows:

¶50

"6. It is to be noticed here that the khatha in the instant case stood in the name of Ganganna right from 1968-69 till his death and therefore, there was no justification for the Deputy Commissioner to interfere with the mutation in which the names of legal heirs of deceased khatedar were brought on record.

¶51

7. In that view of the matter, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is set aside and the order of the Deputy Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner shall stand restored. It is also clarified that the entries in favour of the petitioners would always be subject to the result of the suit in O.S.No.58/2009 and the revenue entries would abide by the decree to be passed in the suit."

¶52

When the appellant/respondent No.5's name did not

¶53

find a place in the revenue record with respect to the land from 1944 till 2009, and he only made an effort in the year 2009 to get his name mutated on the basis of the sale deed dated 17.01.1944, the learned Single judge was right in saying that the appellant/respondent No.5, name cannot be mutated. The

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:22368-DB WA No. 1454 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

appellant/respondent No.5, name would not be mutated till the original suit No.58/2009 gets decided and decree is passed in favour of the appellant.

¶57

The learned Single Judge has made it clear that the revenue entries in the names of petitioners Kempaiah and Gurusiddaiah, would be subject to the final outcome of OS.No.58/2009.

¶58

We find not reason to interfere with the impugned order and the writ petition stands dismissed .

¶59

In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending I.A's, if any, does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.

¶60

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶61

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶62

PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1 ct-vn

Sri Siddagangaiah v. Sri. G. Kempaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Siddagangaiah v. Sri. G. Kempaiah

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

The State of Karnataka Vs Shanthamma

Sri H K Jayanna Vs Manohar

Sri C Ashwathaiah Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt Lavanya Ganesh Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

The Bangalore Development Authority Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Srinivasa Reddy v Vs the Tahashildhar