Revenue authorities must continue with mutation proceedings irrespective of civil disputes, as entries in records do not determine title but are essential for fiscal purposes.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ.

1. For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.2/2025, the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 03.04.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in WP.No.13263/2021 (KLR-RES). The appellant had filed a separate petition impugning an order dated 12.07.2021 passed by respondent No.1 (the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru), whereby the appellant's application seeking stay of the proceedings in Revision Petitions – RP.No.277/2010-2011 and RP.No.260/2016-2017 – which were pending before the Deputy Commissioner, was rejected. It is the appellant's case that since there was a suit, being OS.No.1134/2006, which was pending before the Civil Court involving the issue regarding the title of the subject property, the revision petition in question could not be proceeded with.

3. The learned Single Judge found no fault with the decision of the Deputy Commissioner to reject the appellant's application for staying the proceedings and therefore rejected the petition.

4. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to briefly note the context in which the controversy arises. The lands measuring 12 acres and 13 acres falling in Survey Nos. 31 and 32 of Gadenahalli Village, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, respectively [subject lands] were purchased by one Smt. S. Nagarathnamma, under a sale deed dated 19.06.1966. She was the mother of the writ petitioner Smt. S.B.Rajini, since deceased. The appellant claims to be the legal heir of Smt. S.B. Rajini.

5. The appellant claims that the purchaser (Smt. S. Nagarathnamma) had executed a will dated 04.08.2007 bequeathing life interest in the subject land to her daughter Smt. S. B. Rajani and thereafter to her grandsons Sri. V. Shivakumar and Sri. Tejus (the appellant) in the present appeal.

6. The appellant claims that since one Sri. Arasegowda and some other persons had attempted to interfere with the Smt. S. Nagarathnamma's lawful and peaceful possession of the subject land. In view of the above, said Smt. S. Nagarathnamma had filed a civil suit being OS.No.102/2006 before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru. The said suit was subsequently renumbered as OS.No.1134/2006. In the said action, Smt. S. Nagarathnamma had sought declaration to the effect that she is absolute owner of the subject land and had not alienated the same to any third person. She claimed that some persons had fabricated sale deeds and sought a declaration that the said sale deeds were not binding.

7. During the pendency of the civil proceeding, Smt. S. Nagarathnamma expired and Smt. S. B. Rajini was brought on record as her legatee. Smt. S. B. Rajini expired on 16.04.2024. Thereafter, appellant was brought on record in the said suit.

8. It is the appellant's case that the mutation of the entries regarding the subject land was not effected and the RTC records did not reflect the name of Smt. S. Nagarathnamma, even though she had purchased the subject lands from Sri. Arasegowda by virtue of the sale deed dated 22.04.1966, which were registered on 22.06.1966.

9. The appellant alleges that the subject land was mutated in the name of other persons on the basis of fabricated documents.

10. Smt. S. Nagarathnamma filed an appeal being RA.No.414/2005 in respect of 12 acres of subject land falling in Survey No.31 and RA.No.415/2005 in respect to 13 acres of land falling in Survey No.32, inter alia, seeking that the mutation entries in the names of the third parties, be