Karnataka High Court
Administrative and Public LawProperty and Real Estate Law

Writ interference with revenue mutation was declined while the title dispute remained pending before the civil court.

NAGARATHNAMMA, vs STATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High CourtJUDGMENT: September 22, 20261 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
Writ interference with revenue mutation was declined while the title dispute remained pending before the civil court.. NAGARATHNAMMA, vs STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The petitioner challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order dated 18 September 2025, the Assistant Commissioner’s order dated 2 November 2022, and the Tahsildar’s order dated 23 January 2020 concerning mutation entries for land in Sy. No. 80/2, Chokkanahalli Village.

Source reference: p. 6, para. 1

The revenue authorities had changed the mutation in favour of private respondents on the basis of affidavits stating that they were the legal representatives of the deceased Seethe Gowda.

Source reference: p. 7, para. 2

The petitioner and private respondents claimed rights in the property as joint family property, and a civil suit, O.S. No. 922/2022, was pending before the competent court.

Source reference: p. 7, para. 3
02

Issues

1. Whether the High Court should interfere under Articles 226 and 227 with the revenue authorities’ orders concerning the mutation entry while the parties’ competing claims to the property were pending in a civil suit.

Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 1, 3

2. Whether the petitioner could pursue relief before the competent authorities after the civil suit concluded.

Source reference: p. 7, para. 5
03

Law Applied

The Court considered its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and declined to interfere with the impugned revenue orders in the circumstances presented: the parties asserted competing rights in joint family property, and the underlying dispute was pending before a competent Civil Court.

Source reference: pp. 6–7, paras. 1, 3–4

The judgment cited no statute beyond the constitutional provisions invoked, nor any precedent.

Source reference: no citation
04

Reasoning

The Court noted that the mutation had been altered on the basis of affidavits from persons claiming to be Seethe Gowda’s legal representatives.

Source reference: p. 7, para. 2

Because the petitioner and private respondents were asserting competing rights in the joint family property and O.S. No. 922/2022 remained pending, the Court considered that it should not interfere with the revenue authorities’ orders.

Source reference: p. 7, para. 3

It did not adjudicate the parties’ competing claims to title.

Source reference: no citation
05

Holding

The High Court dismissed the writ petition.

The High Court left the petitioner at liberty to approach the competent authorities after the civil suit concluded.

Source reference: p. 7, para. 5
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

NAGARATHNAMMA,vsSTATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · September 22, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment