A re-grantee’s name must be entered in revenue records where respondents assert no competing property claim.

The petitioner claimed rights over the subject property through a re-grant order dated 26 June 1953 in favour of his father.

The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 20 December 2024, directed the Tahsildar to verify documents and decide the matter.

The Deputy Commissioner set that order aside on 29 January 2026.

The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order and initially also questioned the constitutionality of Section 136(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as amended; however, he did not press those constitutional prayers.

Respondents 5 to 15 disputed the re-grant and claimed to be devotees associated with the temple on the land, which they said they had constructed.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner erred in interfering with the Assistant Commissioner’s order where the petitioner claimed the property under a re-grant order and respondents 5 to 15 were not rival claimants to the property.

2. Whether the Court should decide the challenge to the amended Section 136(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, when the petitioner did not press prayers seeking that relief.

Section 136(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as amended by Karnataka Act No. 6 of 2025, was invoked in the petition, but the petitioner did not press the constitutional challenge to it; the Court therefore did not determine the amendment’s validity or interpret its effect.

The judgment cites no precedent or separate statutory rule as the basis for its decision.

Its determination rested on the petitioner’s asserted claim under the 1953 re-grant order and the Court’s finding that respondents 5 to 15 were not rival claimants to the property.

The Court noted that the petitioner claimed the property on the strength of the re-grant order, whereas respondents 5 to 15 claimed an association with the temple on the land.

It treated them as devotees, not rival claimants to the property, and concluded that the Deputy Commissioner had erred in setting aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order.

The constitutional challenge was not adjudicated because the petitioner did not press it.

It directed the Tahsildar to enter the petitioner’s name in the revenue records for the subject property forthwith.

The challenge to amended Section 136(1) was left undecided because the relevant prayers were not pressed.