WP/10341/2022 of SMT K MUNIYAMMA @ LAKSHMI Vs SMT PRAMEELA on 31 August 2026

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is filed challenging the order dated 01.02.2022 passed by respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru in Revision Petition No.71/2016-17.

2. Heard Sri Dinesh Gaonkar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Y.S. Hanumantha Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Uma Shankar M.N., learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Sri Santoshraj Deshmukh, Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.3 to 6.

3. The case of the petitioner is that her grandfather, Sri Huccha alias Hucchappa, is the owner of 9 guntas of land in Survey No.182/3 of Bommasandra

HC-KAR

Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru, and his name continued in the revenue records for several years till 1993-1994. However, the Tahsildar, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, who is the granddaughter of Sri Hucchappa, vide M.R.No.5/1994-95, entered the name of respondent No.2-Sri Prabhakar in the revenue records, recording that Sri Thimmareddy had died 30 years ago, that he had two sons and that respondent No.2 had inherited the property.

4. The contention of the petitioner is that, while effecting M.R.No.5/1994-95, the Tahsildar ought to have verified the revenue records and ascertained in whose name they in fact stood instead of mearly recording that the revenue records standing in the name of Sri Thimmareddy were factually incorrect. However, the revenue records were standing in the name of Sri Hucchappa, the grandfather of the petitioner.

5. It is to be noticed that the order of the Tahsildar was assailed by the petitioner before the

HC-KAR

Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated 25.05.2016, set aside M.R.No.5/1994-95. Respondent No.2 assailed the same before respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner and respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, while exercising revisional power, allowed Revision Petition No.71/2016-17 by recording reasons that there is a sale deed dated 18.12.1967 and that, based on the same, there was a partition between the parties in O.S.No.405/2013.

6. It is to be noticed that, while removing the name of Sri Hucchappa, the grandfather of the petitioner, from the revenue records, by virtue of M.R.(IHC) No.5/1994-95, no notice had been issued to the legal heirs of Sri Hucchappa.

7. It is also to be noticed that respondent No.1 is claiming title based on the sale deed. However, the revenue authorities are required to consider the case of both sides and take an appropriate decision with regard to the entry of names in the revenue records insofar as

HC-KAR

Survey No.182/3, to the extent of guntas of Bommasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bengaluru is concerned. In the absence of any notice, the jurisdictional Tahsildar has entered the name of Sri Prabhakar in the revenue records, which is impermissible. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 01.02.2022 passed by respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru, in Revision Petition No.71/2016-17 is hereby set aside. Consequently, M.R.No.5/1994-95 is hereby set aside. iii) The jurisdictional Tahsildar shall hear the petitioner and the respondents on merits. The parties are permitted to place all relevant materials before the Tahsildar to

HC-KAR

substantiate their respective contentions and the Tahsildar shall pass orders in accordance with law.

Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE SHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25