Smt P L Puttalakshamma v. The State of Karnataka

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:43139-DB( WA(No.(1088(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010244832026( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU(

TH DATED(THIS(THE(13 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

PRESENT(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(D(K(SINGH(

AND((

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(H.SHANTHI(BHUSHAN(

WRIT(APPEAL(NO.(1088(OF(2026((KLR-RES)(

BETWEEN:(( (

1., SMT,P,L,PUTTALAKSHAMMA, W/O.,SRI.,K.R.,SUBBARAYAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,58,YEARS,, KALLUDI,GRAMA,,KASABA,HOBLI,, GAURIBIDANUR,TALUK,, CHIKKABALLAPURA,DISTRICT,561,208, …APPELLANT, (BY,SRI.,NAGENDRA,KUMAR,K.,,ADVOCATE), , AND:( ( D igitally 1., THE,STATE,OF,KARNATAKA, signedtiby REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,,VASANTHA PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,,,KUMARY0B0K REVENUE,DEPARTMENT,, Location: M.S.,BUILDING,,HIGH COURT0OF BENGALURU,-,560,001, KARNATAKA ,

2., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLPURA,SUB,DIVISION,, CHIKKABALLAPURA,-,562,101., , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:43139-DB( WA(No.(1088(of(2026( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010244832026( ( (

3., DEPUTY,COMMISSIONER,, CHIKKABALLPURA,, CHIKKABALLAPURA,DISTRICT,-,562,101., ,

4., SMT.,GANGALAKSMAMMA, W/O.,K.G.,GANGAPPA,, AGED,ABOUT,70,YEARS,, R/AT,KALLUDI,GRAMA,, KASABA,HOBLI,, GAURIBIDANUR,TALUK,, CHIKKABALLAPURA,DISTRICT,-,561,208., ,

5., THE,TAHASILDAR, GAURIBIDANUR,TALUK., CHIKKABALLAPUR,DISTRICT,-,561,208., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,B.RAVINDRANATH,,AGA,FOR,R1,TO,R3,&,R5;, ,,,,,,SRI.,A.V.GANGADHARAPPA,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R4), , , , THIS,WRIT,APPEAL,IS,FILED,UNDER,SECTION,4,OF,THE, KARNATAKA, HIGH, COURT, ACT, PRAYING, TO, SET-ASIDE, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, DATED, 10/06/2025, IN, WP, NO.5811/2025, PASSED, BY, THE, LEARNED, SINGLE, JUDGE,, HON'BLE, HIGH, COURT,OF,KARNATAKA,,AT,BENGALURU,AND,ALLOW,THE,WRIT, PETITION,FILED,BY,THE,APPELLANT,,ETC., , , THIS,APPEAL,,COMING,ON,FOR,PRELIMINARY,HEARING,, THIS,DAY,,JUDGMENT,WAS,DELIVERED,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:, ,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,D,K,SINGH, ,and,, ,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,H.SHANTHI,BHUSHAN, ,

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 10.06.2025 passed by the writ Court in W.P.No.5811/2025 (KLR-RES) as well as the order dated 11.12.2025 passed in R.P.No.288/2025, instituted by the appellant herein.

¶2The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court for the sake of convenience.

¶3Petitioner claims to be the owner of the land in Survey No.134/12B measuring 33 guntas situated at Kalludi Grama, Kasaba Hobli, Gauribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District. The total area of Survey No.134/12 before division in 134/12A and 134/12B was 1 acre 23 guntas.

¶4The petitioner claims right over the land on the basis of succession. However, respondent No.4

appears to have been in possession of the land in Survey No.134/12B and on the basis of that possession, her name was entered in the revenue record.

¶5The petitioner applied for mutation of her name before the Tahsildar in Case No.55/2006-07 and the Tahsildar vide order dated 18.08.2006 directed for mutation of the petitioner's name in respect of the land in Survey No.134/12B in RRT CR(K)55/06-07 and deletion of the name of the respondent - K. G. Gangappa.

¶6From the records it is also clear that the name of Mr. K. G. Gangappa came to be recorded vide MR No.15/1989-1990 in respect 33 guntas of the land in Survey No.134/12B.

¶7As K.G. Gangappa-respondent, was not the party before the Tahsildar, he filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapur Sub-Division Chikkaballapur. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 03.03.2023 set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and directed to take necessary steps to effect khata in respect of the land in Survey No.134/12B in name of respondent No.4, who is the wife of late K. G. Gangappa as K.G. Gangappa had executed a gift deed in the name of his wife/respondent No.4. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner filed a revision petition being RA No.15/2023-24 before the Deputy Commissioner in Chikkaballapur. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 24.01.2025, dismissed the Revision petition on the ground that the Tahsildar had passed the order without respondent No. 4 or her husband being

impleaded and there was no error in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. This Order dated

24.01.2025 came to be challenged by the appellant by filing writ petition. The writ Court has dismissed the writ petition only on the ground that a Civil Suit in OS No.95/2022 was pending consideration before the competent civil court and the disputed question of fact were involved with regard to title, which could be decided only in appropriate civil proceedings.

¶8Mr.A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that the civil suit has nothing to do with the inter se dispute between the appellant and respondent No.4 in respect of the revenue entries.

¶9We therefore, find that the reasoning of learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition is

unsustainable. When the civil suit has nothing to do with the inter se dispute between the appellant and respondent No.4, dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of pendency of the civil suit filed by some third party is totally unsustainable and therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶10However, we are of the view that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar for effecting the name of the appellant in the revenue entry on the ground that respondent No.4 or her husband were not party and not heard. In the fitness of things, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner ought to have remanded the matter back to the

Tahsildar to hear the appellant and the respondent No.4 afresh and thereafter, take a decision. We therefore, remand the matter back to the Tahsildar to decide the case afresh after giving opportunity to the appellant/petitioner as well as respondent No.4.

¶11We make it clear that all issues and contentions are left open to be contended by the parties before Tahsildar. However, till Tahsildar decides the issue finally, name of respondent No.4 shall remain in the revenue records.

¶12Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN) JUDGE

NG CT:SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22