Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 9299
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
D K Singh, T.M. Nadaf, JJ
SRI JAYARAMAIAH – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WA No. 1076 of 2025|WRIT APPEAL NO. 1076 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Narendra S.
For the Respondents: Mohammed Jaffar Shah, K. Vijaya Kumar, R. Badrinath
Revenue mutation entries must accurately reflect the remaining land extent based on the mathematical difference between the total land area and the area transferred via registered sale deeds.
Headnote:The appeal was filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging a Single Judge's order that restored a mutation entry (M.R.No.H4/2012-13) in favor of the petitioner. The dispute centered on land in Sy.No.46/2, where a 1956 sale deed transferred 02 Acres 22 Guntas out of a total of 03 Acres 31 Guntas, leaving a remainder that was incorrectly recorded as 01 Acre 21 Guntas in the revenue records. The court addressed the issue of the factual correctness of the land extent mentioned in the mutation entry. The court reasoned that since 02 Acres 22 Guntas were sold from a total of 03 Acres 31 Guntas, the remaining extent must mathematically be 01 Acre 09 Guntas, rendering the entry of 01 Acre 21 Guntas factually incorrect. With these observations, the Writ Appeal is disposed of.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the land mutation dispute and subsequent litigation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. correction of land extent in revenue records based on sale deed calculations. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. final disposal of the writ appeal. (Para 11) |
Digitally signed by REKHA R HANCHARAHALLY
Location: BIDRAHALLI HOBLI,
High Court of Karnataka
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2025 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.23171/2023 (KLR) BY RESTORING THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT-3 PASSED IN M.R No.H4/2012-13 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.09.2012 AND RESTORE THE REVENUE ENTRIES MADE IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANTS AS PER ORDERS OF THE RESPONDENT No-2 PASSED IN RA(BE) 175/2012-13 VIDE ORDER DATED 02.06.2014.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)
1. This intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 by respondent Nos.4 to 6 has been filed challenging the order dated 09.06.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.23171/2023.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the learned Single Judge.
3. Heard, Sri.Narendra.S., learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.Mohammed Jaffar Shah, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 & 6, Sri.K.vijaya Kumar., learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri.R.Badrinath., learned counsel for respondent No.5.
4. The petitioner claims to be the owner of land in Sy.No.46/2 measuring 01 Acre 09 Guntas of Kodigehalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk. She further submitted that originally the land belonged to one Pillappa S/o.Doddashankarappa and after the demise of Pillappa, his wife Muniyamma and her two sons have sold an extent of 02 Acres 22 Guntas in Sy.No.46/2 of Kodigehalli Village in favor of Narayanappa S/o.Kunigal Bachappa and Muniyappa @ Kakyappa through a registered Sale Deed dated 13.08.1956 (Annexure-C to the Writ Petition).
5. After the execution of the sale deed dated 13.08.1956, remaining property was retained by the family. A mutation came to be entered in M.R.No.H4/2012-13 dated 10.09.2012 in the name of the petitioner in respect of remaining land in Sy.No.46/2 to an extent of 01 Acre 21 Guntas.
6. The said mutation order was called in question before the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner in RA (BE) 175/2012-13. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and set-aside the mutation entry and directed to mutate the name of the private respondent in the revenue records.
7. The petitioner preferred revision before the Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.279/2014-15 and the same came to be dismissed on 19.08.2023 (Annexure-A) confirming the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Aggrieved by both the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P.No.23171/2023.
8. The learned Single Judge after going through the papers, found that in view of the sale deed and retaining the remaining property with the family of the petitioner, both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner without taking note of the entire facts and circumstances, interfered with the mutation order in favor of petitioner vide Annexure-H. In that view of the aforesaid, learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and directed respondent No.3 - Tahsildar to restore M.R.No.H4/2012-13 in favor of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the order. It is this order passed by the learned Single Judge is called in question in this appeal.
9. Sri.Narendra.S., learned counsel though has argued on several points but unable to make out a case to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. He submits that in terms of the Sale Deed at Annexure-C,
