Government’s name cannot be entered in revenue records based on an unspecified, unverified court decree.

The land at issue comprised Survey No. 106/E/1, measuring 2 acres, granted to Hanamanthappa, and Survey No. 106/E/2, measuring 1 acre, granted to Bheemayya.

The petitioner purchased the latter from Bheemayya by registered sale deed dated 17 June 1999, after expiry of the grant restriction, and his name was entered in the revenue records.

The Tahsildar later entered the Government’s name in the records.

The petitioner’s appeal to the Assistant Commissioner was dismissed, as was his revision under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

In an earlier writ petition, the High Court remanded the revision for reconsideration after hearing the petitioner and other concerned parties.

On remand, the Deputy Commissioner again dismissed the revision, relying on a reference in the 2013–14 record to a court decree.

The petitioner challenged the Tahsildar’s, Assistant Commissioner’s and Deputy Commissioner’s orders in this petition.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner could uphold the Government’s entry in the revenue records based on a reference to a court decree without identifying the decree or establishing that it concerned the same land and bound the petitioner.

2. Whether the impugned revenue orders should be set aside and the petitioner’s name restored to the revenue records.

Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, provided the basis for the petitioner’s revision before the Deputy Commissioner.

The Court’s reasoning proceeded on the principle that a revenue entry cannot be sustained on an unsubstantiated reference to a court decree: the authority must have material establishing the decree’s nature and its relevance to the land and parties concerned.

No judicial precedent was cited.

The petitioner produced revenue records showing his name from the date of purchase, while the Deputy Commissioner relied on the 2013–14 record’s reference to a decree dated 1 August 2002.

The Deputy Commissioner did not identify the case number or nature of that decree, and the record contained no material showing that it concerned the land in question or had been passed against the petitioner.

The Court also noted that the petitioner’s name had remained in the revenue records from the purchase until the Government’s name was entered, with the mutation entry referring to both the asserted decree and the petitioner’s status as a Government employee.

In the absence of supporting material, the Government’s entry lacked a sufficient basis.

It directed the Tahsildar to enter the petitioner’s name in the revenue records for Survey Nos. 106/E/1, measuring 2 acres, and 106/E/2, measuring 1 acre, within three months of receiving the order.

No order as to costs was made.