Revenue authorities cannot adjudicate title disputes, which must be decided by civil courts.

The petitioners challenged revenue orders dated 21 December 2023 and 21 October 2024 concerning mutation entries for land bearing Sy. No. 34/2A.

They alleged that the entries were changed without notice and that Durgappa, whose name they said had been entered illegally in the mutation register, fraudulently sold 10 guntas to respondents 5 and 6.

Respondent 5 relied on a registered sale deed and stated that the petitioners’ suit for declaration and consequential permanent injunction, O.S. No. 386 of 2022, was pending before the Civil Court.

The Court noted that MRH Nos. 5/2012-13 and 7/2012-13 had been effected on the basis of a registered sale deed in favour of respondent 5.

1. Whether the revenue authorities’ mutation entries should be set aside on the petitioners’ allegation that they were made without notice.

2. Whether the alleged fraud in the sale deed and the parties’ competing claims to the land could be adjudicated in the writ petition, or required determination by the competent Civil Court.

The Court applied Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, under which the mutation entries in this case were effected on the basis of the registered sale deed.

The Court also applied the principle that revenue authorities do not adjudicate title to land; disputed title and related questions requiring adjudication must be determined by the competent Civil Court.

The Court viewed the dispute as concerning the identification of the land’s boundaries and the validity of the competing claims, including the petitioners’ allegation that the registered sale deed was fraudulent.

Because the petitioners had already sought declaration and consequential relief in the pending civil suit, the Court considered those questions to be for the Civil Court rather than the revenue authorities or the writ court.

It noted that the mutations were based on a registered sale deed and had been effected under Section 128, and found no ground to interfere.

It left the petitioners at liberty to approach the competent revenue authority after conclusion of the civil suit, in accordance with law.

It further clarified that its observations, and those of the revenue authorities, would not prejudice the petitioners’ effort to establish their rights and title before the Civil Court.