Sri Munivenkataiah @ Sri. Munivenkatappa v. The Deputy Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 6367 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

¶1SRI MUNIVENKATAIAH @ SRI. MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, S/O LATE CHOWDAIAH R/AT BAPUJI NAGARA VILLAGE KASARAGHATTA DHAKLE SOMPURA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562123.

2. SRI. ANAND K AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA

3. SMT. BANU PRIYA GOPAL AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, W/O SRI. ANAND K

PETITIONERS NO.2 & 3 ARE R/A HALEHALLI VILLAGE MAYASANDRA POST, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU 562 107 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LOKESH R., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU RURAL-562110.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2026:KHC:11958( WP(No.(6367(of(2026( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( ,

2., THE,ASSISTANT,COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA,,SUB,DIVISION,, DODDABALLAPURA-561203., ,

3., THE,TAHASILDAR, NELAMANGALA,TALUK, BENGALURU,,RURAL,DISTRICT-562123., ,

4., THE,,REGIONAL,COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU,,DIVISION,, REVENUE,DEPARTMENT,&,NODAL,OFFICER,, OFFICE,,OF,EX,OFFICIO,SECRETARY,, nd(ECONOMIC,,OFFENCE),2 ,FLOOR,,, B.M.T.C,BUILDING,,K,H,ROAD,, BENGALURU-560027., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.NAVYA,SHEKHAR.,,AGA), , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLES,226,&, 227,OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, ISSUE, A, WRIT, IN, THE, NATURE, OF, CERTIORARI, QUASHING, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, DATED., 07.02.2026, PASSED, IN, CASE, STNO.REV(RVN)/21/2025, BY, THE, 1 , RESPONDENT, VIDE, ANNEXURE-X,AND,ISSUE,A,WRIT,OF,MANDAMUS,,DIRECTING, RDTHE, 3 , RESPONDENT, TO, RESTORE, THE, KATHA,, MUTATION, AND,OTHER,REVENUE,RECORDS,TO,THE,JOINT,NAMES,OF,THE, PETITIONER,NOS.,2,AND,3,VIDE,M.R.,NO.H10/2025-26,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

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for all the respondents.

¶2The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order at Annexure-X dated 06.02.2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District in proceedings bearing No.Rev(Rvn)/21/2025.

¶3Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Deputy Commissioner was requested to take up the revisional proceedings suo motu in terms of Section 56(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, pursuant to a communication made by the Regional Commissioner, Bangalore Division in proceedings bearing No.RA(Ne) 224/2024 dated 07.01.2025, since it was found that the first petitioner herein who filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 136(2) in RA(Ne) 224/2024 where he had impleaded only the Tahsildar, Nelmangala Taluk as the respondent while seeking entry

of his name in the revenue records pursuant to a family partition said to have taken place on 18.02.2009. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the action of the Regional Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner cannot be faulted, since this Court has held in several such cases and has found fault with the action of the Assistant Commissioners who have passed orders in such cases where only the Tahsildar is made as a party respondent to the proceedings and the person whose name would be removed from the revenue records has not been made a party to the proceedings. The principles of natural justice would require a notice to be issued to the person whose name would be removed from the revenue records.

¶4Learned Counsel for the petitioners however submits that petitioners No.2 and 3 have further purchased the property at the hands of petitioner No.1.

¶5Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, and the learned Additional Government

Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that no infirmity can be found in the impugned orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner which was accentuated as per the directions issued by the Regional Commissioner. If the petitioners No.2 and 3 have purchased the lands from petitioner No.1 under a registered sale deed, their rights would not be affected in any way, subject to the consideration whether petitioner No.1 had right, title and interest in the lands sold away to petitioners No.2 and 3. After issuing notice to all persons concerned the Tahsildar shall reconsider the representation given by petitioner No.1.

¶6With these observations the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶7Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE

DL/CT: JL