M/S CHAMUNDESHWARI CITY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56468
WP No. 2964 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010051772024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 08 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

WRIT PETITION NO.2964 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

1. M/S CHAMUNDESHWARI CITY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD
REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR
SRI. ROHITH REDDY
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.43,
ROOM NO.4 J C ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 002.
…PETITIONER







(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIDHAN SOUDHA
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT
MYSURU – 570 011.

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MYSURU DISTRICT
MYSURU - 570 011.




Digitally
signed by
CHAYA S A
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56468
WP No. 2964 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010051772024



4. TAHSILDAR
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSORE DISTRICT – 571302.

5.
THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
CITY SURVEY
MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 011.

6. THE ASSITANT DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS CITY SURVEY
NANJANUGUD TALUK
MYSURU DISTRICT - 570 011.

7. SMT. TULASAMMA
W/O LATE MAHADEVA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
RESIDINGAT HALIDODDI VILLAGE
CHIKKAYYANA CHATRA HOBLI,
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSURU – 571302.

8. SRI. MADESH
S/O LATE MAHADEVA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
RESIDINGAT HALIDODDI VILLAGE
CHIKKAYYANA CHATRA HOBLI,
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSURU – 571302.

9. SRI. LOKESH
S/O LATE MAHADEVA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESIDINGAT HALIDODDI VILLAGE
CHIKKAYYANA CHATRA HOBLI,

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56468
WP No. 2964 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010051772024



NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSURU – 571302.

10. SRI. NARAYAN
S/O LATE MAHADEVA NAIKA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESIDINGAT HALIDODDI VILLAGE
CHIKKAYYANA CHATRA HOBLI,
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSURU – 571302.

11. SRI. K.T. HUCHAPPA NAIKA
AGE MAJOR
RESIDINGAT HALIDODDI VILLAGE
CHIKKAYYANA CHATRA HOBLI,
NANJANGUD TALUK
MYSURU – 571302.

12. SRI. M.P. NAKUL GOWDA
S/O B.C. PRASANNA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/AT HOUSE NO.36, OOTY ROAD
GOWRI SHANKAR NAGAR
MYAURU CITY-570 025.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R6;
SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R8;
SRI. K. SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R12)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENTRY MADE IN MR NO.H.53/2022-23 PASSED BY
RESPONDENT NO.4 AT ANNEXURE-C; AND ETC.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56468
WP No. 2964 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010051772024



THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the
mutation entries made in M.R. No. H:53/2022-23
(Annexure-C) and M.R. No. H:42/2021-22 (Annexure-
D), both passed by respondent No. 4, and further
seeking to quash the RTC extracts produced at
Annexures-E and E1 to the writ petition.

2. Heard Sri.Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Shamanth
Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the respondent-State; Sri. P. Nataraju,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.8
and Sri. K. Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent No.12

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56468
WP No. 2964 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010051772024




3. Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended that
the petitioner claims rights over the subject property
as per Annexure- B dated 17.04.2006 (Annexure-B).
It is further contended that the land in question was
converted for non-agricultural purposes on
30.04.1999, as per Annexure-A. Since the conversion
is reflected in the registered sale deed produced at
Annexure-B and the land is being utilised for non-
agricultural purposes, the revenue authorities have no
authority in law to effect changes in the mutation
entries. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the impugned mutation
entries made by respondent No. 4 calls for
interference of this Court.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further
contended that, as evident from Annexure-D, the land

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56468
WP No. 2964 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010051772024



in question has been phoded. Therefore, the
interference by the revenue authorities is
unwarranted. It was also contended that the
impugned mutation entries were effected without
affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
On these grounds, the learned counsel for the
petitioner sought for interference of this Court.

5. Per contra, Sri. K. Sreedhar, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No. 12, referred to the
proceedings in O.S. No.16 of 2026 instituted by the
petitioner herein, wherein the petitioner has
challenged the registered sale deeds dated
30.11.2023 and the mutation entries effected
pursuant thereto. He therefore contended that, since
the dispute regarding the registered sale deed and the
consequential mutation entries is already pending
consideration before the competent Civil Court, the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56468
WP No. 2964 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010051772024



petitioner cannot seek parallel adjudication of the
same dispute before this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. Accordingly, he sought
dismissal of the writ petition.

6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent
No. 12 further contended that, in view of the matter
being sub-judice before the competent Civil Court, no
interference is called for in the present writ petition.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and upon careful consideration of the
material on record, it is forthcoming from the
registered sale deed dated 17.04.2006, produced at
Annexure-B, that the petitioner has purchased the
subject land. The said sale deed records that the land
in question had been converted for non-agricultural
purposes pursuant to an order passed by the
competent authority on 30.04.1999.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56468
WP No. 2964 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010051772024




8. In this regard, the Division Bench of this Court, in
the case of J.M. Narayana and others vs.
Corporation of the City of Bangalore By its
Commisioner Office, Bangalore and others
reported in ILR 2005 KAR 60 , has held that the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, is not applicable
to lands that have been converted for non-agricultural
purposes by the competent authority and fall within
the jurisdiction of a municipal corporation, as such
lands cease to be agricultural lands for the purposes of
the said Act.

9. In the present case, it is forthcoming from the
material on record that the subject land was converted
for non-agricultural purposes by the competent
authority. The said conversion order has not been
challenged by either of the parties. In view of the
declaration of law by the Division Bench of this Court,

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:56468
WP No. 2964 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010051772024



I am of the considered opinion that respondent No. 4
lacked jurisdiction to effect the impugned mutation
entries in respect of the converted land.

10. In the circumstances, I find force in the
submissions made by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the
following:
ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed .

ii. The impugned mutation entries made in M.R. No.
H:53/2022-23 (Annexure-C) and M.R. No. H:42/2021-
22 (Annexure-D), both passed by respondent No. 4,
are hereby set aside, along with all consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.

Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57