S Gopalaswamy v. The Deputy Commissioner

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.40503 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:

¶1S. GOPALASWAMY AGEDA BOUT 58 YEARS S/O LATE SRINIVASAIAH R/OF GONUR GATE FARM HOUSE GOLLAHALLI VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562135. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. CHANDRANNA, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT DISTRICT BHAVAN 1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE KUNDANA HOLBI DEVANAHALLI TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110.

¶2THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION DODDABALLAPUR BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203.

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42032( WP(No.(40503(of(2019( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010263582019( ( ( ,

3., THE,THASILDAR,, DEVANAHALLI,TALUK, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU,RURAL,DISTRICT-562110., ,

4., ANANTHAPADMANABHACHAR, , S/O,LATE,R.,RAMAIAH, , SINCE,DECEASED,BY,HIS,LRS., , , 4(a)., SMT.,SHARADAMMA, , W/O,LATE,ANANTHAPADMANABHACHAR, , AGED,ABOUT,70,YEARS, , , 4(b)., RAJENDRA,KUMAR,, S/O,LATE,ANANTHAPADMANABHACHAR, AGED,ABOUT,70,YEARS, ., 4(c)., SATHENDRA,KUMAR,, S/O,LATE,ANANTHAPADMANABHACHAR, SINCE,DECEASED,REP.,BY,LRS.,,, , 4(c)(i)., SMT.,PADMALATHA, W/O,LATE,SATHENDRA,KUMAR, AGED,ABOUT,44,YEARS., , 4(c)(ii)., AKSHAY, S/O,LATE,SATHENDRA,KUMAR, AGED,ABOUT,19,YEARS, BOTH,4(c)(i)&,4(c)(ii), ARE,RESIDING,AT,NO.,366,, ST1 ,,MAIN,ROAD, PANCHASHEELANAGAR, NAGARABHAVI,POST, BENGALURU-560072., , 4(d)., SRIDHAR,, S/O,LATE,ANANTHAPADMANABHACHAR, AGED,ABOUT,39,YEARS, , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:42032( WP(No.(40503(of(2019( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010263582019( ( ( RESPONDENTS,NO.4(a),4(b),&,4(d),ARE, RESIDING,AT,NO.364,,365,AND,370, ST1 ,,MAIN,ROAD, PANCHASHEELANAGAR, NAGARABHAVI,POST, BENGALURU-560072, ,

5., SMT.,BHAGYALAKSHMI,, AGED,ABOUT,55,YEARS, D/O,LATE,R.,SRINIVASAIAH, RESIDING,AT,NO.13, DODDABASTHI, KENGERI,HOBLI, BENGALURU,NORTH,TALUK, BENGALURU,CITY,DISTRICT., , …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SMT.,B.P.,RADHA,,AGA,FOR,R1,TO,R3;, SRI., S.G., PARTHASARTHY,, ADVOCATE, FOR, R4(b),, R4(c)(i), &, R4(c)(ii);, V/O,DATED,03.12.2025,NOTICE,TO,R4(d),HELD,SUFFICIENT,), , THIS,WRIT,PETITION,IS,FILED,UNDER,ARTICLE,226,OF, THE,CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,QUASH,THE,ORDER, DATED, 11.04.2019, MADE, IN, R.P.NOs.170/2005-06, AND, RP, NO.32/2006-2007,ANNEXURE-A,PASSED,BY,THE,RESPONDENT, NO.1,,ORDER,DATED,23.01.2006,IN,APPEALS,NOs.,RA(DE)31,, 32/2004-2005, ANNEXURE-B,, PASSED, BY, THE, RESPONDENT, NO.2,AND,ALSO,THE,ORDER,DATED,12.11.2003,(ANNEXURE-C),BY,THE,RESPONDENT,NO.3.,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, DICTATING, ORDERS,, THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:,

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.04.2019 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1 in R.P. No.170/2005-06 connected with R.P. No.32/2006-07, the order dated 23.01.2006 (Annexure-B) passed by respondent No.2, and the order dated 12.11.2003 (Annexure-C) passed by respondent No.3.

¶2The brief facts necessary for adjudication of the writ petition are that the land bearing Sy. No.64 measuring 24 guntas and Sy.No.42 measuring 3 acres 30 guntas, situated at Gollahalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk, are Devadaya Inam lands endowed to Sri Chennakeshwara Swamy Temple, Gollahalli Village. It is the case of the petitioner that his father and

ancestors were the Archaks of the said temple and were cultivating the lands in question.

¶3Pursuant to the promulgation of the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid lands were granted in favour of the petitioner's father by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru, as per order dated 31.01.1976 (Annexure-E). It is further stated that the petitioner's uncle, late Sheshachar, executed a registered Will in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner continued in possession and cultivation of the lands.

¶4It is further stated that respondent No.4 instituted O.S. No.185 of 2002 before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bengaluru Rural District, seeking declaration in respect of the lands granted in

favour of the petitioner, which was subsequently renumbered as O.S. No.2065 of 2006.

¶5It is also stated that respondent No.4 filed an application before respondent No.3 seeking mutation of the khata in his favour. Based on an Endorsement dated 03.08.1995, respondent No.3 effected mutation and entered the name of respondent No.4 in the RTC extracts.

¶6Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner and Smt. Kanakamma, wife of late Sheshachar, preferred R.A. No.31/2004-05 before respondent No.2. Simultaneously, respondent No.4 filed R.A. No.32/2004-05 challenging the revenue entries standing in the name of the petitioner. Respondent No.2, after considering the material on record, allowed R.A. No.32/2004-05 filed by respondent No.4 and dismissed R.A. No.31/2004-05 filed by the petitioner.

¶7Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner and Smt. R. Kanakamma (wife of late Sheshachar) preferred R.P. No.170/2005-06 and R.P. No.32/2006-07 before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, by the impugned common order dated

11.04.2019, dismissed both the revision petitions. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has presented this writ petition.

¶8I have heard Sri R. Chandranna, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State; and Sri S.G. Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for the legal representatives of respondent No.4.

¶9Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner's father and his ancestors had been cultivating the lands in question for several decades

and that occupancy rights in respect of Sy. No.42 measuring 3 acres 30 guntas and Sy. No.64 measuring 24 guntas were granted in favour of the petitioner's father under the order of the competent authority. He further submitted that the revenue records have consistently stood in the name of the petitioner's father and thereafter in the name of the petitioner. It is also contended that under the Panchayat Palupatti dated 15.05.1976, the lands in question were allotted to the share of the petitioner's father. Learned counsel further submitted that respondent No.4 had earlier instituted O.S. No.588 of 1995 against Smt. Kanakalakshmamma, which came to be dismissed. Therefore, according to him, the respondent-authorities have failed to consider the material evidence on record while interfering with the revenue entries standing in the petitioner's name, and consequently sought interference by this Court.

¶10Per contra, Sri S.G. Parthasarathy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, sought to justify the impugned orders by contending that late Anantha Padmanabhachar was in lawful cultivation and possession of the lands in question and, therefore, the authorities were justified in directing mutation in favour of respondent No.4. Accordingly, he sought dismissal of the writ petition.

¶11Learned Additional Government Advocate also supported the impugned orders passed by the respondent-authorities.

¶12Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it is not in dispute that the lands in question are Devadaya Inam lands and that occupancy rights were granted in favour of the petitioner's father under the order dated

31.01.1976 (Annexure-E) passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition, Bengaluru, in respect of Sy. No.42 measuring 3 acres 30 guntas and Sy. No.64 measuring 24 guntas situated at Gollahalli Village.

¶13It is also evident from the records that a partition was effected among the members of the family under a Panchayat Palupatti dated 15.05.1976 (Annexure-L), wherein the lands in question were allotted to the share of late R. Srinivasaiah, the petitioner's father. Pursuant thereto, the revenue entries came to be effected in his favour.

¶14The records further disclose that O.S. No.588 of 1995 instituted by respondent No.4 against Smt. Kanakalakshmamma came to be dismissed by judgment and decree dated 26.11.1998. It is also forthcoming from the material on record that

respondent No.4 suffered a judgment and decree dated 02.08.2021 in O.S. No.2065 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli, in respect of the very same property. The said judgment and decree have been confirmed by the First Appellate Court in R.A. No.15040 of 2021 on the file of the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural, sitting at Devanahalli.

¶15In view of these undisputed facts, respondent No.1 has committed an error in dismissing R.P. No.170/2005-06 and R.P. No.32/2006-07 by the impugned order dated 11.04.2019. The findings recorded by respondent No.1 are contrary to the material available on record. More importantly, respondent No.1 has failed to take note of the judgment and decree passed by the competent Civil Court in respect of the subject property. The

impugned order thus suffers from non-application of mind and cannot be sustained in law.

¶16Accordingly, I find considerable force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the following: ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 11.04.2019 passed by respondent No.1 in R.P. No.170/2005-06 connected with R.P. No.32/2006-07 and all further proceedings thereto, are hereby quashed.

(iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to restore and enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of Sy. No.42

measuring 3 acres 30 guntas and Sy. No.64 measuring 24 guntas situated at Gollahalli Village, Devanahalli Taluk, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

(iv) Ordered accordingly.

SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69