Mr Pavan P v. State of Karnataka

NC:(2026:KHC:11069( WP(No.(8560(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

RDDATED(THIS(THE(23 (DAY(OF(FEBRUARY,(2026(

BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(R(DEVDAS( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(8560(OF(2025((KLR-RR/SUR)( ( BETWEEN:(( (

1., MR.,PAVAN,,P,

S/O,LATE,PUTTAHANUMAIAH,,, AGED,ABOUT,27,YEARS,,, ,

2., MR.,G.,CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, S/O,LATE,GANGAHANUMAIAH,,, AGED,ABOUT,54,YEARS,,, , BOTH,ARE,R/AT,NO.,24,,, SASUVEGHATTA,VILLAGE,,,

HESARAGHATTA,HOBLI,,, YALAHANKA,TALUK,,, BANGALURU,DISTRICT,-,560,088.,

…PETITIONERS, (BY,SRI.,R.,SRINIVASA,GOWDA.,,ADVOCATE), Digitallytisigned by0JUANITA THEJESWINI AND:( Location: ( HIGH0COURT 1., STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, OF KARNATAKA REVENUE,DEPARTMENT,,, VIDHANA,SOUDHA,,, BANGALORE,-,560,001, REP,BY,ITS,SECRETARY., ,

2., THE,SPECIAL,DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER-3, BANGALORE,NORTH,SUB,DIVISION,,, K,G,ROAD,,BANGALORE,-,560001., ,

3., THE,TAHSILDHAR, YALAHANKA,TALUK,,, YALAHANKA,560064., NC:(2026:KHC:11069( WP(No.(8560(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( (

4., THE,REVENUE,INSPECTOR, HESARAGHATTA-1,HOBLI,,, YALAHANKA,TALUK,560,088., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.V.SESHU.,,HCGP), , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,&,227,OF,THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,QUASH,THE,MUTATION, ORDER,PASSED,IN,M.R.NO.T,14/2023-24,DTD.,30.04.2024,BY, THE,R-4,(ANNX-L),AND,THE,ORDER,DTD.,04.05.2024,PASSED, BY, THE, R-3, IN, CASE, NO., RRT(DIS), CR.106/2024, (ANNX-M), AND,DIRECT,THE,R-3,AND,4,TO,EFFECT,MUTATION,IN,FAVOR, OF,LATE,S.M.,GANGAHANUMAIAH,S/O,MUNIYAPPA,IN,TERMS, OF,THE,ORDER,DTD.,04.12.2023,PASSED,BY,THE,R-2,IN,CASE, NO.,RRT(2)(NA)CR11/2019-20,(ANNX-H),AND,ETC.,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,,THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,R,DEVDAS, , ORAL(ORDER( The,petitioners,are,aggrieved,of,the,mutation,order, in,M.R,No.T,14/2023-24,dated,30.04.2024,at,Annexure-L, and, the, Office, Order, dated, 04.05.2024, passed, by, the, Special,Tahsildar,,Yalahanka,Taluk,in,proceedings,bearing, No.RRT(DIS),CR.106/2024,at,Annexure-M.,,,,,,,,

2.,,Learned,Counsel,for,the,petitioners,submits,that, Sri.Gangahanumaiah,, the, father, of, petitioner, No.2, and, grandfather, of, petitioner, No.1, had, filed, an, application,

seeking regularization of unauthorized occupation of 2.00 Acres of land in Survey No.14 of Sasuveghatta Village, Hesaraghatta Hobli, Yalahanka Taluk and the Tahsildar, the competent authority issued an Official Memorandum on 04.07.1978 granting the said lands in favour of Sri.Gangahanumaiah. Thereafter, Saguvali Chit was issued after collecting the kimmath and the name of the grantee - Sri.Gangahanumaiah was also entered in the revenue records. However, after computerization, the name of Sri.Gangahanumaiah was not continued in the revenue records.

¶3Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the meanwhile, at the instance of the Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk, the Special Deputy Commissioner-3, Bengaluru North Sub-Division took up suo motu proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and after verification of the original records, the Special Deputy Commissioner held that it is true that the lands were granted in favour of

the Sri.Gangahanumaiah. Accordingly, the proceedings initiated before the Special Deputy Commissioner was dropped by order dated 04.12.2023 with a direction to the Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk to mutate and enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records as they are the legal heirs of Sri.Gangahanumaiah. However, the Tahsildar, instead of complying with the directions issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, passed the impugned mutation order in M.R.No.T14/2023-24 dated

30.04.2024 at Annexure-L declining to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records while stating that the claim of the petitioners is unfounded and the documents that are produced by the petitioners are bogus. Thereafter, the Special Tahsildar passed the impugned Office Order dated 04.05.2024 at Annexure-M reiterating what was stated in the mutation order and declined to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records.

¶4Today, the learned High Court Government Pleader has filed a memo along with a copy of a

communication dated 26.06.2025 made by the Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk to the Regional Commissioner, Bangalore Division, seeking proceedings to be initiated under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

¶5Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the order was passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner on 04.12.2023. If at all the Tahsildar or the State was aggrieved of such an order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, a revision petition could have been filed before the competent authority in terms of Section 56(3) within a period of 4 months from the said date. The learned Counsel therefore submits that it is not permissible for the Tahsildar to seek to commence proceedings under Section 56 of the Act at the hands of the competent authority.

¶6On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the

respondent-Tahsildar has exceeded his limits in passing the impugned mutation order dated 30.04.2024 at Annexure-L and issuing the impugned office order dated

04.05.2024 at Annexure-M. When a higher authority passes an order, the officers below the said officer are required to comply with the directions issued by the higher officer. If the officer at a lower level is of the opinion that the orders passed by the higher authority is not in accordance with law, then action should be taken only in accordance with law. There is a clear direction issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner that the names of the petitioners should be entered in the revenue records. However, after a lapse of nearly 2 years the impugned action has been taken by the Tahsildar declining to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. Such an action is clearly opposed to the provisions of law and the discipline which is required to be maintained by the officers.

¶7Consequently the writ petition is allowed. The impugned mutation order in M.R No.T 14/2023-24 dated

30.04.2024 at Annexure-L and the Office Order dated

04.05.2024 passed by the Special Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk in proceedings bearing No.RRT(DIS) CR.106/2024 at Annexure-M, are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-Tahsildar, Yalahanka Taluk and the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District are hereby directed to proceed to enter the names of the legal heirs of Sri.Gangahanumaiah in the revenue records in terms of the directions issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner in proceedings bearing No. RRT(2) (NA) CR 11/2019-20 dated 04.12.2023 as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL CT: JL