Disputed mutation entries must be reconsidered on merits after hearing parties and verifying prior land records.

The petitioners, claiming through Sanna Narsanna, asserted that Survey No. 29/B fell to his branch in a 1963 partition and was later subdivided, with Survey No. 29/B1 allotted to Mahadevappa.

In 1999, the names of respondents 9 and 10 were entered in the revenue records for 2 acres 16 guntas under MR No. 30/1999.

The petitioners’ challenge was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner and, in revision under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, by the Deputy Commissioner.

They then sought relief under Article 227 of the Constitution.

The High Court noted that the mutation entry referred to a partition deed but did not disclose its material particulars or the basis for the entry.

1. Whether the Assistant Commissioner’s and Deputy Commissioner’s orders, and MR No. 30/1999, should be set aside where the mutation entry did not disclose its basis and the parties’ claims required reconsideration on the relevant revenue records.

2. Whether the petitioners’ claim to the subject land could be finally determined in the writ proceedings, or should instead be reconsidered by the Assistant Commissioner after hearing both sides.

The Court considered the revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

It directed reconsideration of the revenue appeal on its merits, with an opportunity for both parties to produce relevant material and with verification of earlier revenue records.

The Court cited no precedent and did not finally determine title; it expressly treated its observations as prima facie.

The revenue records from 1963 indicated that Survey No. 29/B had fallen to the branch of Sanna Narsanna, and the petitioners claimed through that branch.

The Court also noted that the petitioners’ names had been recorded before being replaced in respect of Survey No. 29/B1, while MR No. 30/1999 did not set out the particulars or basis of the partition deed it referenced.

Given the need to assess the parties’ respective documents and the earlier revenue records, the Court considered a fresh merits determination by the Assistant Commissioner appropriate, rather than itself deciding the parties’ substantive rights.

It remitted the appeal to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration on the merits, in accordance with law, after giving both parties sufficient opportunity and verifying the earlier land revenue records.

No order was made as to costs.