K S Shivamallamma v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 6545 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

K S SHIVAMALLAMMA W/O N.KEMPANANJAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, NO.219/1, OLD BANDIKERI, K.R MOHALLA, MYSURU-570024 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDESH T B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001, REP BY IS CHIEF SECRETARY

¶2THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER REVENUE DEPARTMENT MYSURU SUB-DIVISION MYSURU-570001

¶3ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER REVENUE DEPARTMENT MYSURU SUB-DIVISION MYSURU-570001

4. TAHASILDAR T.NARASIPURA TALUK

by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2026:KHC:8769( WP(No.(6545(of(2025( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( MYSURU,DISTRICT-571124, ,

5., RAGAVENDRA.S, S/O,S.,SHIVARAMU, KUPYA,VILLAGE,AND,POST, KASABA,HOBLI,, T.NARASIPURE,TALUK,, MYSURU,DISTRICT-571124, ,

6., S.,SHIVARAMU, S/O,LATE,MADEGOWDA, KUPYA,VILLAGE,AND,POST,, KASABA,HOBLI,,, T.NARASIPURE,TALUK,,, MYSURU,DISTRICT-571124., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SMT.,NAVYA,SHEKHAR.,,AGA,FOR,R1,TO,R4, ,,,,,,SRI.,T.P.VIVEKANANDA.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R5,&,R6), , , THIS,W.P.,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,&,227,OF,THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,QUASH,THE,IMPUGNED, ORDER, DTD., 15.01.2025, PASSED, BY, THE, R-2, VIDE, ANNX-E, AND, GRANT, AN, INTERIM, ORDER, TO, STAY, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, DTD., 15.01.2025, PASSED, BY, THE, R-2, VIDE, ANNX-E, AND,ETC.,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, ORDERS,, THIS, DAY,, ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, , CORAM:,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,R,DEVDAS, , ORAL(ORDER( , The, petitioner, and, respondent, No.6, are, sister, and, brother,, while, respondent, No.5, is, the, son, of, respondent,

No.6. The dispute between the siblings is in respect of the joint family properties in Survey No.51, measuring 2 acres 9 guntas situated at Kupya Village, Kasaba Hobli, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysuru District. The petitioner is aggrieved of the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District, at Annexure 'E' in proceedings bearing R.P.No.180/2023 dated 15.01.2025, whereby the Special Deputy Commissioner set aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner while directing the Tahsildar to enter the name of respondent No.6 in respect of 2 acres and 9 guntas in Survey No.51.

¶2Earlier, respondent No.6 had filed an application before the Tahsildar, T.Narasipura Taluk, seeking deletion of the name of the petitioner herein from the revenue records pursuant to mutation order bearing No.M.R.5/1998-99. The Tahsildar rejected the application on the ground that the partition which respondent No.6 is claiming is an unregistered partition deed. Respondent

No.6 had earlier filed an appeal under Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act before the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division in R.A.No.138/2017 questioning the mutation entry made in favour of the petitioner herein in M.R No.5/1998-99. The Assistant Commissioner partly allowed the appeal while directing the Tahsildar, T.Narasipura Taluk, to decide the issue at his level. Accordingly, the Tahsildar passed an order at Annexure 'A' dated 16.10.2020 rejecting the claim of the respondent no.6 on the ground that the claim is based on an unregistered partition deed dated 25.05.1992.

¶3The appeal filed by the respondent No.6 before the Assistant Commissioner in RA No.461/2020 was also dismissed on 27.04.2022. Thereafter the Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru District, has passed the impugned order at Annexure 'E' allowing the revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of the Act while directing the Tahsildhar to enter the name of the respondent No.6 in respect of 2 acres 9 guntas in Survey No.51.

¶4When the matter came up for preliminary hearing before this Court, this Court passed an order while issuing notice to the private respondents and directing that the status quo shall be maintained in respect of the revenue entries till the next date of hearing.

¶5Learned counsel for the contesting respondents no.5 and 6 submits that there have been subsequent developments after this writ petition is filed. Respondents No.5 and 6 have sold the property in question to a third party under registered sale deed dated 27.03.2025. Learned counsel submits that respondents No.5 and 6 were not aware of the interim orders passed by this court and the learned counsel submits that the records may be verified and it will show that the notice is not served on respondents No.5 and 6 till date. However, when the purchaser sought to have her name entered in the revenue records, she was informed of the interim orders passed by this court and the said purchaser has informed respondents no.5 and 6 of the pendency of this writ

petition and the interim orders passed by this court and thereafter respondents no.5 and 6 have voluntarily appeared before this court by filing vakalath on

10.09.2025.

¶6Learned Counsel for the private respondents would therefore submit that having regard to the subsequent developments, the prayer made in this writ petition may not survive for consideration.

¶7Learned counsel for the petitioner however submits that when interim order has been passed by this court on 07.03.2025 directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the revenue entries, the private respondents could not have sold the property in violation of the orders passed by this court.

¶8In the considered opinion of this court, having regard to the facts narrated hereinabove, now that the property has been transferred in favour of third party, the matter regarding the revenue entries as prayed for in this

writ petition will not survive for consideration. The parties will have to work out their remedies before the Civil Court.

¶9With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

Pending I.As., if any stand disposed of accordingly.

Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

JT/- CT: JL