Sri. Siddaraj B.K. S/O B.K. Mukkanna, Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri. Siddaraj B.K. S/O B.K. Mukkanna, Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the Tahsildar's order dated 05.09.2023 (Annexure-C), the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure-B) and the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure-A) quashed; respondent No.4–Tahsildar directed to reconsider afresh in accordance with law and enter the petitioner's name in the Record of Rights for Survey No.38/A measuring 5 acres 57 guntas, Dammur Kaggal Village, on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 03.05.2023, within four weeks from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the orders of the Tahsildar (05.09.2023), Assistant Commissioner (28.05.2024) and Deputy Commissioner (23.10.2024) refusing to enter the petitioner's name in the revenue records on the ground that Column No.6 of the Record of Rights contained an 'Inam' entry are sustainable, when the 'Inam' entry had admittedly been cancelled/deleted by the Tahsildar's order dated 08.02.1985.

Ratio / Principle

As undisputed, the entry of 'Inam' in Column No.6 of the Record of Rights was deleted by the Tahsildar's order dated 08.02.1985, pursuant to which the original owner K. Chandrasekhar was entered in the revenue records, who sold to B.K. Govindappa (Mutation Entry No.30/91-92), from whom the petitioner purchased under registered sale deed dated 03.05.2023.

Key takeaways

The impugned order of respondent No.4–Tahsildar refusing to enter the petitioner's name in the revenue records on the ground that an 'Inam' entry existed is wholly unjustified, as it discloses no basis for concluding that the 'Inam' entry continued to exist after its admitted cancellation/deletion by order dated 08.02.1985.ratio¶57
The orders passed by the Tahsildar and confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are unsustainable in law and warrant interference by this Court.ratio¶58

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka Land Revenue – Record of Rights – Mutation of purchaser's name – Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorari – Tahsildar (order dated 05.09.2023, Annexure-C) refused to enter petitioner's name in the revenue records on the ground that Column No.6 of the Record of Rights contained an 'Inam' entry; confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner (28.05.2024, Annexure-B) and further affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (23.10.2024, No. APL/71/2024, Annexure-A) – Held: the 'Inam' entry had admittedly been cancelled/deleted by the Tahsildar's order dated 08.02.1985, pursuant to which the original owner K. Chandrasekhar was entered in the revenue records; he sold to B.K. Govindappa (Mutation Entry No.30/91-92), from whom the petitioner purchased under registered sale deed dated 03.05.2023 – the impugned orders disclose no basis for concluding that the 'Inam' entry continued to exist and are unsustainable in law – all three orders quashed – Tahsildar directed to reconsider afresh and enter the petitioner's name in the Record of Rights for Survey No.38/A measuring 5 acres 57 guntas, Dammur Kaggal Village, on the basis of the sale deed dated 03.05.2023, within four weeks.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:765 WP No. 100055 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 100055 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SIDDARAJ B.K. S/O B.K. MUKKANNA, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DAMMUR KAGGAL VILLAGE, TAL: AND DIST: BALLARI-583 101.

…PETITIONER

(BY SMT. PALLAVI S. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583 101.

GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.31 10:34:04 +0530

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BALLARI, TAL AND DIST: BALLARI-583 101.

THE TAHASILDAR, BALLARI, TAL AND DIST. BALLARI-583 101.

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, BALLARI, TQ AND DIST: BALLARI-583 101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO. APL/71/2024 DATED 23/10/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 MARKED AT ANNEXURE – A AND ETC.,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:765 WP No. 100055 of 2025

HC-KAR

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

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has called in question the order dated 05.09.2023 passed by respondent No.4–Tahsildar (Annexure-C), whereby respondent No.4 refused to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records on the ground that Column No.6 of the Record of Rights contained an entry of ‘Inam’. The said order was confirmed by respondent No.3–Assistant Commissioner by order dated 28.05.2024 (AnnexureB) and further affirmed by respondent No.2–Deputy Commissioner by order dated 23.10.2024 (AnnexureA).

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. The property in question bearing Survey No.38/A measuring 5 acres 57 guntas, situated at Dammur Kaggal Village, is claimed to have been

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:765 WP No. 100055 of 2025

HC-KAR

originally owned by one K. Chandrasekhar, S/o. Veerabhadrappa. The land is stated to be the ancestral property of the said K. Chandrasekhar, and Column No.6 of the Record of Rights reflected the nature of the land as ‘ancestral’.

2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the order passed by the Tahsildar dated 08.02.1985, the pokal entry describing the land as ‘Inam’ in Column No.6 of the Record of Rights was struck off. Thereafter, the name of the original owner was entered in the mutation records.

2.3. Subsequently, K. Chandrasekhar executed a

registered sale deed in favour of one B.K. Govindappa in the year 1987, pursuant to which Govindappa’s name was entered in the revenue records under Mutation Entry No.30/91-92.

2.4. The petitioner thereafter purchased the scheduled property from the said B.K.

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:765 WP No. 100055 of 2025

HC-KAR

Govindappa and his children under a registered sale deed dated 03.05.2023.

3. Contention of the petitioner :

3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the ‘Inam’ entry in Column No.6 of the Record of Rights had already been deleted as per the order of the Tahsildar order dated 08.02.1985, and pursuant thereto, the names of the original owners were duly reflected in the mutation records.

3.2. It is contended that at no point of time thereafter there was any subsisting ‘Inam’ entry.

3.3. The impugned order passed by respondent No.4 is therefore based on an erroneous assumption that Column No.6 still contained an ‘Inam’ entry.

Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents justified the order passed by the Tahsildar and confirmed by the

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:765 WP No. 100055 of 2025

HC-KAR

Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, contending that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim is based on valid grounds and does not call for interference by this Court.

This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and perused the material on record.

Undisputedly, the entry of ‘Inam’ in Column No.6 of the Record of Rights was deleted by the order of the Tahsildar dated 08.02.1985. Pursuant thereto, the name of K. Chandrasekhar, the original owner, was entered in the revenue records. He thereafter executed a registered sale deed in favour of B. K. Govindappa, whose name was mutated under Mutation Entry No.30/91-92. The said Govindappa, in turn, executed a registered sale deed dated 03.05.2023 in favour of the petitioner.

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:765 WP No. 100055 of 2025

HC-KAR

The impugned order passed by respondent No.4

refusing to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records on the ground that there existed an ‘Inam’ entry is wholly unjustified. The impugned order does not disclose any basis for concluding that the ‘Inam’ entry continued to exist, particularly when the Tahsildar had admittedly cancelled/deleted the same by order dated 08.02.1985.

Under such circumstances, the orders passed by the Tahsildar and confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are unsustainable in law and warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed .

ii. The impugned order dated 05.09.2023 passed by respondent No.4–Tahsildar (Annexure-C), order dated 28.05.2024 passed by respondent No.3–

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:765 WP No. 100055 of 2025

HC-KAR

Assistant Commissioner (Annexure-B), and order dated 23.10.2024 passed by respondent No.2– Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-A) are hereby quashed .

iii. Respondent No.4–Tahsildar is directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law and enter the name of the petitioner in the Record of Rights pertaining to Survey No.38/A measuring 5 acres 57 guntas, situated at Dammur Kaggal Village, on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 03.05.2023, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

Sd/-

JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

gab CT-ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7