Allowed

Chinnavenkatamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC23 Jun 2026WP/47123/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a Deputy Commissioner's revision order concerning mutation entries and sale deeds. The court found the authorities had no benefit of a rectification deed dated after the orders under challenge, allowed the petition, set aside both the revision and appellate orders, and remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh decision with hearing to all parties.

What the court decided

AI extract

Chinnavenkatamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:31295 WP No. 47123 of 2011

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.47123 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

CHINNAVENKATAMMA W/O LATE SIDDAGOWDA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS:

¶9

VARADARAJU S/O LATE SIDDAGOWDA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS:

¶10

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

1(a). SUVARNAMMA W/O LATE VARADARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT KADKOL VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008.

¶12

1(b). CHANDRU K.V. S/O LATE VARADARAJU AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS R/AT KADKOL VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008.

¶13

1(c). MAHESH K.V. S/O LATE VARADARAJU AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS R/AT KADKOL VILLAGE,

¶14

¶15

NC: 2026:KHC:31295 WP No. 47123 of 2011

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. ARUN SHYAM, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NISHAN G.K., ADVOCATE AND SRI. SKANDA ARUN KUMAR, ADVOCATES)

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU - 570 001.

¶22

THE TAHSILDAR MYSURU TALUK MYSURU -570 001.

¶23

CHICKRAMAGOWDA

¶24

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

¶25

3(a). VENKATALEKSHMI W/O LATE CHICKRAMAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT DODADAHALLI JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008.

¶26

3(b). CHINKKARI S/O LATE CHICKRAMAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT MURUDAGALLI JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008.

¶27

3(c). CHANDRAMMA D/O LATE CHICKRAMAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT K.M. HUNDI KADKOL POST

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:31295 WP No. 47123 of 2011

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008.

¶32

3(d). KEMPAMAMMA D/O LATE CHICKRAMAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT K.M. HUNDI KADKOL POST JAYAPURA HOBLI

¶33

MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008.

¶34

3(e). JAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE CHICKRAMAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT MANDAKALLI MYSURU DISTRICT - 570008.

¶35

3(f). MAHADEVU S/O LARE CHICKRAMAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT K.M. HUNDI KADKOL POST JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008.

¶36

3(g). DODDARAM S/O LATE CHICKRAMAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT K.M. HUNDI KADKOL POST JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008.

¶37

3(h). JAYARAMA S/O LATE CHICKRAMAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT K.M. HUNDI KADKOL POST JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:31295 WP No. 47123 of 2011

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

3(i). SHIVALINGA S/O LATE CHICKRAMAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT K.M. HUNDI KADKOL POST JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 008.

¶41

DASAGOWDA

¶42

SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS.

¶43

4(a). SMT. BASAMMA W/O LATE DASAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT KADKOL VILLAGE EDAGARA BEEDI, JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU - 570 004.

¶44

4(b). SHRI. VARADARAJU S/O LATE DASAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT KADKOL VILLAGE EDAGARA BEEDI, JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU - 570 004.

¶45

4(c). SHRI. GOPALA S/O LATE DASAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT KADKOL VILLAGE EDAGARA BEEDI, JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU - 570 004.

¶46

…RESPONDENTS

¶47

(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. VIJAYKUMAR R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.A. MARUTHI PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3(a, b, e, g, h & i); R4 (a ) (b) & R4(c) served;

¶48

V/O DATED 25.10.2019 NOTICE TO R3(c, d & f) HELD SUFFICIENT BY WAY OF PAPER PUBLICATION)

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:31295 WP No. 47123 of 2011

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN REVISION NO.16/10-11 DATED 07.12.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.

¶52

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

¶53

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶54

ORAL ORDER

¶55

In this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 07.12.2010 in Revision No.16/2010-11(Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1.

¶56

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶57

It is contended by Sri. Aruna Shyam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners by referring to AnnexureG - Rectification Deed dated 26.08.2010 which has not been produced before the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru while passing the order dated 26.06.2010(Annexure-F) and the same was produced before respondent No.1 and accordingly, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the said Rectification Deed has

¶58

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:31295 WP No. 47123 of 2011

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

been made after three decades and therefore, contended that,

¶61

the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru be set aside and the matter be remitted to the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru, for fresh consideration of registered instruments by hearing all the concerned parties therein and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶62

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent referred to the schedule mentioned in the registered Sale Deed dated 11.10.1993 (Annexure-R1), registered Sale Deed dated 12.06.1980 (Annexure-R2), rectified registered Sale Deed dated 26.08.2010(Annexure-R3) and the registered Sale Deed dated 26.04.2007(Annexure-R4), and submitted that the discrepancy has occurred on account of mentioning of survey

¶63

number in the registered Sale Deed and same was rectified properly and therefore, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition on the ground that the respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, after considering the entire record has interfered with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru District.

¶64

¶65

NC: 2026:KHC:31295 WP No. 47123 of 2011

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, and on careful consideration of M.R.No.61/1997-1998 and M.R.No.10/1999-2000 passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 07.12.2010 (Annexure-B) dated 26.02.2010, wherein the aforementioned authorities had no benefit of the rectified deed dated 26.08.2010 and in that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the matter has to be reconsidered by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru, afresh. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶70

(ii) The impugned order dated 07.12.2010 in Revision No.16/2010-11(Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside.

¶71

(iii) The order dated 26.06.2010 in Appeal No.R.R.T(A)323/2007-08(Annexure-F) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru is hereby set aside.

¶72

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:31295 WP No. 47123 of 2011

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

(iv) The matter is remitted to Assistant Commissioner,

¶75

Mysuru to reconsider the issue afresh, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and take decision in the matter in accordance with law.

¶76

(v) All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶77

(vi) The mutation entries as it stood prior to the order dated 26.06.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru, shall continue till conclusion of the matter by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru. Thereafter, the parties shall continue to maintain status-quo in respect of the mutation entries are concerned.

¶78

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶79

sac

¶80

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 77

Chinnavenkatamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Chinnavenkatamma v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Mahadevappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Krishnappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri Basheer Ulla Khan Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Balaji Raju Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Kanthamma Vs the State of Karnataka