Once land is converted to non-agricultural purposes, revenue authorities cannot alter land records, and disputes regarding title must be resolved through civil courts.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ.

1. For the reasons stated in the affidavits accompanying the applications seeking condonation of delay, the same are allowed. The delay in filing the appeals is condoned.

2. The appellant has filed the present appeals impugning a common order dated 03.06.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions being W.P.No.17888/2015 (KLR-RR-SUR) connected with W.P.No.48758/2014, W.P.No.49776/2014, W.P.No.50678/2014, W.P.No.51209/2014 and W.P.No.58454/2014.

3. The writ petitioners in the said petitions are arrayed as respondents in the respective appeals arising from the impugned common order passed in the writ petitions.

4. The controversy involved is in a narrow compass and is common, therefore, the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.

5. The facts relevant to W.A.No.904/2025 are referred, as the facts in this case are substantially similar to the facts arising in the other appeals as well.

6. The writ petitioners had filed their respective petition impugning an order dated 23.07.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru (arrayed as respondent No.22 in W.A.No.904/2025) in Revision Petition No.294/2011-12.

7. The appellant had filed the said revision petition assailing an order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru in No.R.A.(BN)166/2010-11. In terms of the said order, the Assistant Commissioner had rejected the petition (being RRT(D)40/2008-09) impugning an order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, observing that the application can be entertained as per the KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT , 1964 [KLR Act], for withdrawing the land conversion order. And, only after the withdrawal of the same, any action can be taken for transfer of Khatha in terms of the partition deed dated 25.03.1982, which was relied upon by the appellant.

8. The appellant claims rights in the lands falling in Survey No.45/3 by virtue of the unregistered partition deed dated 25.03.1982. He seeks that the Record of Rights also reflects his name in respect of portion of lands falling in Survey No.45/3 as the owner. The writ petitioners had purchased the lands by registered sale deeds that were executed after the land had been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purposes. They claim that the revenue authorities do not have the jurisdiction to change land records after the same have been converted to residential lands, formed in a layout within the municipal limits.

9. Briefly stated, the facts are that under a registered sale deed dated 08.11.1958, Sri Thammannappa alias Thammanna, the father of the appellant, had purchased the lands from one Sri Andanappa measuring 4 acres and 16 guntas falling in Survey No. 45/3, Gidadakonenahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru in favour of his three sons, who have been arrayed as respondent Nos.6 to 8 (Sri Ramakrishnaiah, Sri Kempanna and Sri Lakshmihanumantharayappa). The said respondents were minors at the material time and their father, Sri Thammanna, had executed the sale deed as their guardian. Sri Thammanna had two more sons other than the appellant, i.e. (Sri Byregowda and Sri Hanumaiah).

10. On the basis of the said registered sale deed in their favour, respondent Nos.6 to 8 approached the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk and the subject land was mutated in their names vide M.R.No.4/58-59.

11. Thereafter, on 21.10.2003, the said respondents approached the Deputy Commissioner seeking conversion