Sri. G Gangappa vs The Deputy Commissioner & Ors.

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

The present intra-court appeal has been filed impugning the order dated 03.06.2026 passed by the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.28130/2024 (KLR-RES) filed by the private respondents impugning the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Application No.04/2023/24 and order dated 16^th March 2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

One late Narasimhappa, the father of respondentNos.4 and 5 had sold by registered sale deed dated 21.03.1972, 1 acre 27 guntas and 2 guntas of kharab land situated at Gundapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District in favour of the appellant; the appellant's name was mutated in the revenue report around 1974-75 and it continued till 2014. In 2014, the respondent Nos.4 and 5 got the mutation entries changed in their name. When it came to the notice of the appellant, he approached the Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the appeal vide impugned order dated 16.03.2022, against which the revision filed by the respondents came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 15.07.2024. These two orders came to be challenged by the respondents before the Writ Court. The Writ Court has set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner and directed the Tahsildar to record the name of the respondents in revenue records in respect of the land bearing Survey No.77 to the extent of 1 acre 26 guntas situated as Gandapura Taluk, Kasaba Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk, Chikkaballapura District.

The learned Single Judge has completely missed out that the Phodi took place in respect of Survey No.77 in the year 1950 and the said survey number was divided into 9 sub-divisions i.e., 77/1 to 77/9, each measuring 1 acre 26 guntas. The respondents have filed suit for declaration of title in the year 2016 and seeking cancellation of the sale deed dated 21.03.1972 executed by late Narasimhappa.

We are of the view that the impugned judgment and order is against the facts as borne out from the records. Once there has been Phodi in Sy.No.77 and it got divided into 9 sub-survey numbers i.e., 77/1 to 77/9, and the appellant had acquired the right by the sale deed dated 21.03.1972 executed by the father of respondent Nos.4 and 5 in respect of Survey No. 77/7, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were justified and in accordance with the law. Therefore, we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Writ Court. However, the entry of name of the appellant shall be subject to final outcome of the suits pending between the parties before the Civil Court. Accordingly, we pass the following;