Revenue records and registered conveyances alone do not prove a disputed original land grant.

The appellant claimed title to land in Sy. No. 263, originally Sy. No. 84, through a chain of registered sale deeds originating with an alleged 1951 grant to Gururaju.

He relied on a 1979 Khayam Thaktha, revenue records and subsequent mutation entries.

After a portion of the land was proposed for acquisition for highway widening, the Assistant Commissioner found the original grant records unavailable, treated the land as Government property, declared the transactions void and directed the Tahsildar to take possession.

The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appellant’s revision under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, and the appellant appealed that decision

1. Whether the Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition and declining to interfere with the Assistant Commissioner’s and Deputy Commissioner’s orders

2. Whether the unavailable original grant records, in light of the Khayam Thaktha and subsequent revenue records and sale deeds, warranted interference with the authorities’ treatment of the land as Government property

3. Whether the registered sale transactions or alleged lack of opportunity before the Deputy Commissioner independently required interference

The Court considered Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, under which the appellant had sought revision of the Assistant Commissioner’s order

It applied the principle that revenue entries and registered sale deeds, by themselves, do not establish the disputed foundational title where the alleged original grant is in question; the Court also observed that the ultimate question of better title cannot be finally determined merely on the basis of revenue entries

The judgment cites no precedent or other substantive statutory rule governing proof of the grant or title.

The Court accepted that the documents showed a sequence of transactions and that the appellant’s name had appeared in the revenue records, but held that these matters did not resolve whether Gururaju had in fact received the original grant

It found that the revenue authorities had considered the available material, including the Khayam Thaktha and other land records, and that the Single Judge had adequately examined their orders and the record

The appellant identified no fresh material that displaced the authorities’ factual conclusion, and did not show what specific evidence he had been prevented from producing because of the alleged lack of opportunity

It dismissed the writ appeal, confirmed the order dated 11 July 2024 in W.P. No. 9857 of 2022, and left undisturbed the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 30 January 2020 and the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 17 February 2022