Revenue mutation based on a registered sale deed was upheld, subject to civil court’s decision.

The petitioners challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 4 April 2025 and sought restoration of the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 9 August 2021.

They claimed rights under a registered sale deed dated 26 August 1967, a re-grant order dated 31 March 1978, and revenue entries said to record their predecessors’ names from 1969 to 1986.

Respondent No. 6 claimed under a registered sale deed dated 2 March 2019. A civil suit, O.S. No. 15/2022, concerning the property was pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anekal.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s order concerning the mutation entry warranted interference, given the petitioners’ asserted title documents and earlier revenue entries.

2. Whether the parties’ competing claims to the property should be treated as subject to the decision in the pending civil suit.

The Court referred to Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in considering the mutation entry made on the basis of Respondent No. 6’s registered sale deed.

The petitioners relied on Syed Bhasheer Ahamed and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others, AIR 1994 Karnataka 227; however, the Court did not set out or apply a specific proposition from that decision, and found no ground to interfere in light of Section 128 and the circumstances before it.

The Court also made clear that the parties’ rights remained subject to the civil court’s decision and that its observations would not influence that court.

Although the petitioners relied on the 1967 sale deed, the re-grant order, and earlier revenue entries, the Court noted that they had waited approximately three decades before approaching the competent authority to change the mutation records.

It considered that the mutation entry had been made on the basis of Respondent No. 6’s registered sale deed and, having regard to Section 128, held that the Deputy Commissioner’s finding was proper.

Because title was also in dispute in the pending civil suit, the Court left the parties’ substantive rights to be determined there.

It clarified that the parties’ rights would be subject to the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 15/2022, and that its observations—and those of the revenue authorities—would not influence the trial court’s decision.