Revenue records must remain unchanged pending civil adjudication of competing title claims.

The petitioners claimed through their predecessor to be in possession of 3 acres 4 guntas in Survey No. 303/2, Halisagar village, relying on revenue entries extending back to 1965. The registered sale deed relied upon in the chain of title, however, described an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas.

Respondents 5 to 7 had filed a civil suit seeking declaration of ownership and permanent injunction, which remained pending.

After revenue and survey authorities altered the Akaar Band, the respondents’ appeal to the Assistant Commissioner was dismissed. On further appeal under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Deputy Commissioner set aside that decision and limited the petitioners’ revenue entries to 1 acre 10 guntas.

The petitioners challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner’s order restricting the petitioners’ revenue entries to the extent stated in the sale deed should be set aside, given the long-standing revenue entries and the pending civil suit concerning title and possession.

2. Whether the respondents’ appeal to the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act was an appropriate remedy where the original action arose from the survey authorities’ alteration of the Akaar Band.

The Court considered Sections 136(2) and 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and the Act’s Chapter XI. It observed that an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) lies where the relevant order is passed under Chapter XI by the Tahasildar; on the facts, the original order was made by survey authorities, making recourse to Section 136(2) inappropriate.

The Court also applied the principle that, where civil proceedings seeking a declaration of ownership are pending, revenue authorities should not make changes that may generate further disputes, and revenue entries should not be treated as a determination of title or possession. No precedent was cited.

The Court noted the discrepancy between the extent in the sale deed and the larger extent reflected in revenue records for several decades, as well as the petitioners’ claim of possession from 1965.

Because the respondents’ civil suit directly placed ownership and possession in issue, the Court considered it inappropriate for the revenue authorities to alter the entries in a manner that could fuel further litigation or effectively affect the parties’ competing claims before the civil court. It therefore declined to express any view on title or possession and considered restoration of the earlier revenue position appropriate pending the suit.

It directed the jurisdictional Tahasildar to restore the revenue records as they stood before that order, making clear that the entries would remain subject to the outcome of the pending civil suit. The Trial Court was directed to decide the suit on its merits and in accordance with law, uninfluenced by the findings in the Deputy Commissioner’s order or the writ order; no costs were awarded.