1. Challenge to revenue orders cancelling mutation entries based on Inams Abolition Act re-grant. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Kar) 421
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
E.S. INDIRESH, J.
D. Venkatesh S/O Late H.M. Devappa – Appellant
Versus
The Deputy Commissioner Office Of The Deputy Commissioner – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO.19834, 19907 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR)
Decided on : 03-09-2026
Important Points
Statutory vesting of Inam lands in the State renders subsequent private sale deeds void. Legislative mandates for land resumption override equitable doctrines like 'feeding the estoppel,' and mutation entries in revenue records do not confer or extinguish legal title to the property.
Subject
Property Law - Land Revenue and Inams Abolition
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 - Section 3 - Vesting of Inam lands in the State - All rights, title and interest in Inam lands cease and vest absolutely in the State government free from all encumbrances - Any subsequent registered instruments or contracts entered into after such vesting are void and hit by the provisions of the Act - Claimants cannot seek benefit under subsequent sale deeds executed after the land has vested in the State. (Paras 19, 20 and 22)
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 43 - Doctrine of feeding the estoppel - Legislative provisions and statutory vesting under abolition acts take precedence over equitable principles of common law - Doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel is not applicable when statutory resumption or vesting of land has occurred. (Paras 23 and 24)
(C) Revenue Records - Mutation entries - Mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has any presumptive value of title - Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. (Para 25)
(D) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 27 - Extinguishment of right on lapse of limitation - Not applicable in cases where the transfer of property is void ab initio due to statutory vesting. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged orders that cancelled mutation entries in their favor regarding certain land. The subject land was an Inam land which vested in the State government under a 1954 Act. The petitioners' predecessor had purchased the land via a registered sale deed in 1958. However, the original seller had previously applied for and been granted occupancy rights by the competent authority under the 1954 Act. The legal heirs of the original seller challenged the mutation entries made in favor of the petitioners' family, leading to the cancellation of said entries by the revenue authorities.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that since the land vested in the State under the 1954 Act, any subsequent sale deed executed by the previous holder was void. Occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act are granted based on possession, and since the petitioners' predecessor had not applied for occupancy rights for the specific subject land while the original seller had, the grant of rights to the original seller was valid and final.
Issues: 1. Whether a sale deed executed after the statutory vesting of Inam lands in the State is legally valid. 2. Whether the doctrine of feeding the estoppel under the Transfer of Property Act applies to the statutory vesting of land. 3. Whether mutation entries in revenue records confer ownership title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that statutory vesting under the Inams Abolition Act overrides subsequent private contracts, rendering such transfers void. The doctrine of feeding the estoppel is an equitable principle that cannot supersede a clear legislative mandate for the resumption of land by the State. Additionally, mutation entries do not establish title, and the parties must establish their rights independently through lawful means.
Result: Writ Petitions are dismissed.
(B) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 43 - Doctrine of feeding the estoppel - Legislative provisions and statutory vesting under abolition acts take precedence over equitable principles of common law - Doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel is not applicable when statutory resumption or vesting of land has occurred. (Paras 23 and 24)
(C) Revenue Records - Mutation entries - Mutation of property in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title to the property nor has any presumptive value of title - Such entries are relevant only for the purpose of collecting land revenue. (Para 25)
(D) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 27 - Extinguishment of right on lapse of limitation - Not applicable in cases where the transfer of property is void ab initio due to statutory vesting. (Para 24)
Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged orders that cancelled mutation entries in their favor regarding certain land. The subject land was an Inam land which vested in the State government under a 1954 Act. The petitioners' predecessor had purchased the land via a registered sale deed in 1958. However, the original seller had previously applied for and been granted occupancy rights by the competent authority under the 1954 Act. The legal heirs of the original seller challenged the mutation entries made in favor of the petitioners' family, leading to the cancellation of said entries by the revenue authorities.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that since the land vested in the State under the 1954 Act, any subsequent sale deed executed by the previous holder was void. Occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act are granted based on possession, and since the petitioners' predecessor had not applied for occupancy rights for the specific subject land while the original seller had, the grant of rights to the original seller was valid and final.
Issues: 1. Whether a sale deed executed after the statutory vesting of Inam lands in the State is legally valid. 2. Whether the doctrine of feeding the estoppel under the Transfer of Property Act applies to the statutory vesting of land. 3. Whether mutation entries in revenue records confer ownership title.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that statutory vesting under the Inams Abolition Act overrides subsequent private contracts, rendering such transfers void. The doctrine of feeding the estoppel is an equitable principle that cannot supersede a clear legislative mandate for the resumption of land by the State. Additionally, mutation entries do not establish title, and the parties must establish their rights independently through lawful means.
Result: Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- property law
- administrative law
- statutory interpretation
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. C.G. DILEEP GOWDA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE SRI. AJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. NARENDRA, ADVOCATE
For the Appellant :SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. C.G. DILEEP GOWDA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent:SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP SRI. M.R. RAJAGOPAL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. K. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE SRI. AJESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S. NARENDRA, ADVOCATE
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claim title via sale deed; respondents argue land vested in state and re-granted to original owner. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Inam land vested in state; subsequent sale void; failure to apply for re-grant indicates no possession. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. Under Inams Abolition Act, all rights vest in state; subsequent transfers of vested land are void. (Para 20 , 22 , 23 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed; impugned orders of revenue authorities upheld; liberty to establish title separately. (Para 25 )
6. What is the consequence of vesting of an inam land in the State under the Mysore Inams Abolition Act?
All rights, title, and interest of the inamdar cease and vest absolutely in the State free from all encumbrances, rendering subsequent transfers void. (Para 20 , 22 )
7. Is the doctrine of feeding the grant by estoppel applicable to transfers of land after it vests in the State under the Inams Abolition Act?
No, the doctrine has no application as the legislative prohibition on transfer overrides equitable principles. (Para 23 )
8. Do mutation entries in revenue records confer title to property?
No, mutation entries neither create nor extinguish title and are relevant only for collecting land revenue. (Para 25 )
9. Does failure to seek occupancy rights under the Inams Abolition Act indicate absence of possession?
Yes, if a party was in possession, they would have applied for re-grant; failure to do so suggests they were not in possession. (Para 19 , 23 )
10. Are civil courts ousted from determining title to land vested under the Inams Abolition Act?
No, the jurisdiction of civil courts is not ousted for determining title issues, as opposed to granting occupancy rights. (Para 21 )
ORDER :
E.S. INDIRESH, J.
1. In these petitions, petitioners are challenging the order dated 05th November, 2020 passed by the respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru in Case No.R.A.(B.E)358/2016-17; and order dated 01st October, 2021 passed by the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District in Revision Petition No.45/2021 C/W. Revision Petition No.59/2021 in respect of the subject land.
2. It is the case of petitioners in Writ Petition No.19834/2025, that the land bearing Survey No.124 measuring to an extent of 2 acre 24 guntas of Kodihalli Village, Marathahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk was purchased by one Patel V. Ramaiah from the erstwhile owners viz., Sri. Ramaiah, Smt. Byramma and their children as per the registered Sale Deed dated 16th December, 1948 and thereafter, the same was sold by Patel V. Ramaiah in favour of M. Krishnareddy S/o Muniswamappa Reddy @ Peddaiah as per the Registered Sale Deed dated 21st February, 1951. In furtherance of the same, H.M. Devappa had purchased an extent of 3 acre 1 gunta in Survey No.124/2 from M. Krishanareddy S/o Muniswamappa Reddy @ Peddaiah under the registered Sale Deed dated 26th September, 1958. It is further averred in the petition that the respondent-Government had promulgated Mysore (Personal and Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act, 1954 (for short, hereinafter referred to as ‘1954-Act’) and as such, the said Krishnareddy had filed application to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Inams seeking grant of land in his favour to an extent of 2 acre 24 guntas in Survey No.124/2 as a Kadim Tenant in Case No.88. The Special Deputy Commissioner, by endorsement dated 26th December, 1958, granted occupancy right in favour of M. Krishnareddy in respect of the subject land. Thereafter, the said Krishnareddy filed another application in Case No.INA 145/1963-64, claiming occupancy right in respect of remaining extent of 17 guntas and as such, the Additional Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru, by order dated 20th August, 1965 granted occupancy right as claimed by the said M. Krishnareddy.
3. It is also averred in the petitions that, as the said M. Krishnareddy sold the land in favour of H.M. Devappa (father of D. Venkatesh and D. Ramakrishna), the grant of land by the competent authority in favour of M. Krishnareddy is non- est and contrary to records. It is also contended in the writ petitions that the revenue records were mutated in the name of H.M. Devappa as per the registered Sale Deed dated 26th September, 1958. The Index of Land, Record of Rights and Mutation was transferred into the name of H.M. Devappa and accordingly, the said H.M. Devappa became absolute owner of the subject land and as such, M.R.No.54/1964-65 made in favour of said H.M. Devappa. In the meanwhile, the Government of Karnataka issued acquisition proceedings and as such, acquired 22 guntas out of 3 acre 1 gunta in Survey No.124/2 for National Aeronautical Laboratories, Government of India. It is further averred that the said H.M. Devappa received compensation and filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation and same was awarded to him accordingly.
4. It is further sated by the petitioners in writ petitions that the said H.M. Devappa got converted an extent of 20 guntas out of 2 acre 18 guntas on 18th May, 1967 for the purpose of constructing residential house and accordingly, the said H.M. Devappa and his sons viz., D. Venkatesh (father of petitioners in WP No.19834/2021) and D. Ramakrisha (husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners 2 and 3 in WP No.19907/2021) are residing in the subject land. It is also stated that, during the lifetime of H.M. Devappa, partition took place in his family on 23rd October, 1991 and as such, an extent of 37 guntas each was allotted to the share of his sons viz., D. Venkatesh (father of petitioners in WP No.19834/2021) and D. Ramakrishna (husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners 2 and 3 i
