Facts
The petitioners, sons of Siddanagouda Patil, challenged Mutation Register entry No. H-64 dated 5 June 2026, by which land recorded in their names was entered in the name of respondent No. 5, Basanagouda Patil.
Source reference: paras. 1–7The parties’ respective shares had been fixed under a compromise in final decree proceedings arising from a partition suit.
Source reference: paras. 1–7A dispute later arose over the new survey numbers assigned to the properties.
Source reference: paras. 1–7The petitioners alleged that the mutation was changed without notice or enquiry; respondent No. 5 maintained that the change corrected confusion over the survey numbers and stated that the matter remained before the Tahasildar.
Source reference: paras. 1–7Issues
Whether the Tahasildar could alter the petitioners’ existing revenue entries without notice or enquiry
Source reference: para. 11Whether the survey-number and property-identification dispute should be determined through further proceedings before the Tahasildar, including a survey if necessary
Source reference: paras. 10–12Law Applied
The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Source reference: no citationThe Court applied the procedural principle that revenue entries should not be altered without notice or enquiry to the affected parties.
Source reference: para. 11It also treated the compromise decree in the final decree proceedings as the basis for identifying the parties’ respective shares and property descriptions, leaving any dispute over survey-number identification to the Tahasildar for enquiry.
Source reference: paras. 9–12The order cites no specific statute or precedent.
Source reference: no citationReasoning
The parties agreed that their entitlements were governed by the compromise decree, but disagreed about which new survey numbers corresponded to the properties allotted to them.
Source reference: paras. 9–10The Court did not decide that identification dispute.
Source reference: paras. 9–10It held that the Tahasildar’s alteration of the existing entries without notice or enquiry could not stand, and directed restoration of the prior entries pending determination of the issue through enquiry and, if required, survey.
Source reference: paras. 11–12Holding
The Court quashed Mutation Register entry No. H-64 dated 5 June 2026 and directed restoration of the entries as they stood before that date.
The Tahasildar was directed to conduct an enquiry, including a survey if required, and conclude it within three months of receiving the order.
Source reference: para. 15The petition was disposed of, with pending applications also disposed of.
Source reference: paras. 16–17Original Court PDF
SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. SIDDANAGOUDA PATIL ALIASvsTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
