KEMPANNA vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU


TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

WRIT APPEAL NO. 726 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

KEMPANNA
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
R/O MUDIGERE VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMAKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT - 572 101.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. NITHIN K.N, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.

2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
TUMKUR DISTRICT,
TUMKUR-572 101.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION,
TUMKUR-572 101.

4. THE TAASHILDAR GRADE-2
TUMKUR TALUK,
TUMKUR-572101










Digitally signed
by MALA K N
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025


5. RAMESH R
S/O RANGASWAMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/O HENCHINAPALYA,
POST DIBBURU, KASABA HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101.

6. SMT CHINTHAMMA D/O LATE RANGANNA,
W/O SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101.

7. SMT GOURAMMA D/O LATE RANGANNA,
W/O ESHWARAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT MUDIGERE VILLAGE, BELLAVI HOBLI,
TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572 101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SMT. MANJULADEVI.R.KAMADOLLI, ADVOCATE FOR
R5 TO R7 (ABSENT) )

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN
WP NO.8812/2025 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
24/04/2025 IN WP NO.8812/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
SINGLE JUDGE BY DISMISSING WP NO.8812/2025 FILED BY
THE PETITIONERS / RESPONDENT NOS.5 TO 7 HEREIN AND B)
PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS.

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

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)

The present appeal has been filed by respondent No.5
impugning the judgment and order dated 24.04.2025 passed
by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8812/2025
(KLR-RES).
2. The parties are referred according to their
respective rankings before the writ court.
I. Facts of the petitioners:
3. The petitioners claim that the land bearing
Sy.No.4/1, measuring 4 acres 38 guntas, including 3 guntas of
kharab, situated at Bugudanahalli Amanikere Village, Bellavi
Hobli, Tumakuru Taluk and District, originally belonged to one
Suryanarayanappa, who inherited the same from his ancestors.
According to the petitioners, after the death of
Suryanarayanappa, the property devolved upon his son
Surappa, who died on 05.03.1980, and thereafter upon his son
Ranganna, who died on 04.11.1994. Petitioners No.2 and 3,
namely, Chinthamma and Gouramma, claim to be the only

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025

daughters and legal heirs of Ranganna and contend that they
succeeded to the property. They rely upon the RTC extracts for
the period from 1988-89 to 2016-17, wherein the name of
Suryanarayanappa continued to appear in the revenue records.
In the year 2018-19, they submitted an application before the
Tahsildar seeking change of khatha in their names, which was
registered as RRT(DS-2)(Be)CR:No.19/2019-20. Respondent
No.5, Kempanna, objected to the said application contending
that his grandfather had purchased the property under a sale
deed dated 11.10.1933.
4. The Tahsildar, after considering the rival claims,
passed an order dated 27.09.2021, directing maintenance of
status quo in respect of the revenue entries. Respondent No.5
challenged the said order before the Assistant Commissioner in
RRT(A) CR No.71/2023, wherein petitioners No.2 and 3 were
not arrayed as parties, except petitioner No.2. The Assistant
Commissioner, by order dated 04.09.2023, rejected the appeal
and directed entry of the names of Chinthamma and
Gouramma in the revenue records on the basis of the family
tree. Aggrieved by the said order, respondent No.5 preferred

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025

Revision Petition No.166/2023 before the Deputy Commissioner
under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964. The Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 28.10.2024,
allowed the revision and directed the Assistant Commissioner to
take steps in accordance with the compromise decree passed in
O.S. No.32/2019. The petitioners contended that the said
compromise decree was obtained behind their back, without
impleading them or their predecessors, and that the decree
could not affect their claimed rights. It is in these
circumstances that they approached the Writ Court in W.P.
No.8812/2025 challenging the order of the Deputy
Commissioner.
5. Respondent Nos.1 to 4/State have not chosen to file
objections to the writ petition.
II. Statement of objections of respondent No.5/appellant
herein:
6. Respondent No.5, while opposing the writ petition,
contended that the land in question originally belonged to
Suryanarayanappa, who had executed a registered sale deed
dated 11.10.1933 in favour of Kempalaiah, the grandfather of

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025

respondent No.5, in respect of Sy.No.4/1 measuring 6 acres 10
guntas situated at Bugudanahalli Amanikere Village. It was
further contended that, under a partition deed dated
04.05.1937, an extent of 4 acres 35 guntas fell to the share of
Kempalaiah, while the remaining extent fell to the share of his
brother Ganganna. Kempalaiah had three sons, namely
Siddappa, Shivananjaiah and Gangadharappa, and respondent
No.5 is the son of Siddappa. According to him, after the death
of Kempalaiah and Siddappa, he succeeded to the property and
continued in possession and enjoyment thereof. Though the
sale deed was executed in 1933, the revenue entries were not
changed in the names of Kempalaiah or Siddappa, and the
name of Suryanarayanappa continued in the RTC. He explained
that his ancestors were illiterate and were not aware of the
necessity of securing mutation of their names in the revenue
records.
7. Respondent No.5 further contended that he had
instituted O.S.No.32/2019 before the Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Tumakuru, seeking partition and separate possession
of the family properties, wherein a compromise decree dated

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025

05.04.2019 was passed allotting Sy.No.4/1 measuring 4 acres
35 guntas to his share, followed by drawing of the final decree
on 18.06.2019. He also referred to O.S.No.3/2014 instituted by
Rangaswamaiah and others, claiming to be the legal heirs of
Suryanarayanappa, against respondent No.5 and others, which
was dismissed for non-prosecution on 24.09.2021. It was his
specific case that petitioners No.2 and 3 were not the legal
heirs of Suryanarayanappa and had relied upon an incorrect
family tree to claim mutation. He further pointed out that,
during the pendency of the revenue proceedings, petitioners
No.2 and 3 had executed a sale agreement dated 10.09.2020 in
favour of petitioner No.1, Ramesh R, without having any right
over the property. He maintained that the Assistant
Commissioner's order dated 04.09.2023 was beyond the scope
of the appeal preferred by him, as the said authority directed
mutation in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3 even though they
had not preferred any appeal. The Deputy Commissioner,
according to him, rightly set aside the said order on 28.10.2024
and directed mutation in terms of the final decree in O.S.
No.32/2019.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025

III. Order passed in the writ petition:
8. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 24.04.2025
in W.P. No.8812/2025, allowed the writ petition, principally
observing that the sale deed dated 11.10.1933, stated to have
been executed by Suryanarayanappa in favour of Kempalaiah,
had not resulted in any corresponding change in the revenue
entries and that the name of Suryanarayanappa continued in
the records even after his death in the year 1950. The Court
noticed that petitioners No.2 and 3 had sought mutation
claiming to be the granddaughters and legal heirs of
Suryanarayanappa, whereas respondent No.5 relied upon the
sale deed of 1933 and the subsequent compromise decree in
O.S. No.32/2019. The learned Single Judge also noticed that
the Tahsildar had directed maintenance of status quo and that,
though petitioners No.2 and 3 had not challenged the said
order, respondent No.5 had carried the matter in appeal before
the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner had
thereafter directed entry of the names of Chinthamma and
Gouramma in the revenue records, which order was
subsequently reversed by the Deputy Commissioner.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025

9. The learned Single Judge held that the claim of
respondent No.5 for mutation on the basis of the compromise
decree in O.S. No.32/2019 could not be accepted, particularly
when the legal heirs of the original vendor, Suryanarayanappa,
were not parties to the said suit and the decree had been
passed on the basis of a compromise. The Court also took note
of the fact that the suit was instituted nearly 90 years after the
alleged sale deed and that the revenue entries had never been
changed in favour of the purchaser or his family members
during the said period. The contention that the suit in
O.S.No.3/2014 had been dismissed for non-prosecution, by
itself, did not establish that the petitioners were not the legal
heirs of Suryanarayanappa. Accordingly, the learned Single
Judge set aside the order dated 28.10.2024 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner and restored the order dated 04.09.2023
passed by the Assistant Commissioner. However, liberty was
reserved to respondent No.5 to institute appropriate
proceedings before the competent Civil Court seeking
declaration of his rights against the petitioners or any other
persons claiming to be the legal heirs of Suryanarayanappa,
and to seek interim orders in such proceedings.

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025

IV. Grounds of writ appeal:
10. Aggrieved by the order dated 24.04.2025 passed in
W.P. No.8812/2025, respondent No.5 has preferred the present
writ appeal contending that the learned Single Judge failed to
appreciate the registered sale deed dated 11.10.1933 executed
by Suryanarayanappa in favour of his grandfather Kempalaiah
and the subsequent partition deed dated 04.05.1937, under
which 4 acres 35 guntas in Sy. No.4/1 had fallen to the share
of Kempalaiah. It is contended that the compromise decree
dated 05.04.2019 and the final decree dated 18.06.2019
passed in O.S. No.32/2019 were not properly considered,
though the said decree specifically allotted the land in question
to the respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 further contends
that the learned Single Judge failed to notice that
O.S.No.3/2014 had been instituted by persons claiming to be
the legal heirs of Suryanarayanappa against the respondent
No.5 and that the claim of petitioners No.2 and 3 regarding
their relationship with the original owner was seriously
disputed. It is also urged that the Assistant Commissioner,
while rejecting the respondent No.5's appeal on 04.09.2023,

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025

travelled beyond the scope of the proceedings by directing
mutation in favour of petitioners No.2 and 3, though they had
not independently challenged the order of the Tahsildar. The
respondent No.5 contends that the Deputy Commissioner had
rightly interfered with the said order on 28.10.2024 and
directed mutation in terms of the final decree, pursuant to
which MR No.H10/2024-25 was also effected. It is, therefore,
contended that the learned Single Judge was not justified in
setting aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and
relegating the respondent No.5 to a fresh civil suit, despite the
existing civil court decree in his favour, and seeks setting aside
of the impugned order.
11. We have heard Sri.Nithin K.N., learned counsel on
behalf of the appellant/respondent No.5 and
Sri.B.Ravindranath, learned AGA for the State/respondent
Nos.1 to 4. Upon consideration of the pleadings, the records
placed before this Court and the submissions advanced on
behalf of the appellant and the respondents, the following point
arises for our consideration:

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025

Whether the respondent No.5 has made out any
ground warranting interference with the order dated
24.04.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P. No.8812/2025 (KLR-RES)?
V. REASONS AND CONCLUSION:
12. We have carefully examined the order passed by
the learned Single Judge, the pleadings in the writ petition and
the objections filed by respondent No.5. The fact remains that
the alleged sale deed dated 11.10.1933 executed by
Suryanarayanappa in favour of Kempalaiah was never acted
upon for the purpose of changing the revenue entries, and the
name of Suryanarayanappa continued in the revenue records
for nearly 90 years. Even after the alleged purchaser and his
successors, including the father of the respondent No.5, had
succeeded to the property, no steps were taken to secure
mutation of their names. It was only when petitioners No.2 and
3 submitted an application during 2018-19 seeking mutation on
the basis of their claim of inheritance that the respondent No.5
raised objections relying upon the sale deed of 1933. This long
lapse of time and the continued revenue entries in the name of

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025

the original khatedar are relevant circumstances which could
not have been ignored while considering the claim for mutation.
13. It is also relevant to notice that O.S.No.32/2019 was
a suit instituted by respondent No.5 against his own family
members, in which Sy.No.4/1 was included as one of the suit
schedule properties on the assertion that the same had been
purchased by his grandfather Kempalaiah under the sale deed
dated 11.10.1933. The compromise decree dated 05.04.2019
and the final decree dated 18.06.2019 were admittedly passed
without impleading the legal heirs of Suryanarayanappa, the
original vendor. Therefore, such a compromise decree, arrived
at between the family members of the respondent No.5, cannot
by itself be made the basis for disturbing the existing revenue
entries or for defeating the claim put forth by persons asserting
inheritance from the original khatedar. The learned Single
Judge has rightly noticed this particular aspect and has also
taken note of the fact that dismissal of O.S. No.3/2014 for non-
prosecution on 24.09.2021 would not, by itself, establish that
petitioners No.2 and 3 are not the legal heirs of
Suryanarayanappa.

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025

14. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated
04.09.2023, had rejected the appeal preferred by the
respondent No.5, whereas the Deputy Commissioner, in
Revision Petition No.166/2023, by order dated 28.10.2024, set
aside the said order and directed the revenue authorities to act
in terms of the final decree in O.S.No.32/2019. In our
considered view, the learned Single Judge has rightly interfered
with the order of the Deputy Commissioner, particularly when
the persons claiming through the original vendor were not
parties to the compromise proceedings. It is significant that the
learned Single Judge has not foreclosed the rights of the
respondent No.5 and has specifically reserved liberty to him to
institute appropriate civil proceedings seeking declaration of his
title against the petitioners and other persons claiming through
Suryanarayanappa. In the event of such a declaration being
obtained, the revenue entries can be altered accordingly.
15. In that view of the matter, we do not find any
perversity or illegality in the reasoning adopted by the learned
Single Judge warranting interference in this appeal. The
respondent No.5 has not made out any good ground to

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:48573-DB
WA No. 726 of 2025


CNR: KAHC010321612025

interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and further
to disturb the well-reasoned order.
dismissed
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands .
The judgment and order dated 24.04.2025 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8812/2025
(KLR-RES) is hereby affirmed.
Pending I.A. stands disposed of.
No order as to costs.

Sd/-
(D K SINGH)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)
JUDGE


KNM
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7