WA/1136/2026 of SRI MUNIYAPPA @ MUNEPPA Vs THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER on 9 June 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T M NADAF) This intra-Court appeal is by respondents 4 and 5 in the Review Petition (original Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.8506/2022) assailing the order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Review Court in R.P.No.280/2024.

2. By the impugned order, the Review Court reviewed its order passed in W.P.No.8506/2022, modifying the direction No.4 in the order passed in Writ Petition, directing the third respondent to restore the name of Ramappa @ Surahalli Ramappa in the revenue records instead of name of the petitioners.

3. Facts germane to file the present Writ Appeal are as under: 3.1 Appellants herein were the petitioners in W.P.No.8506/2022. They filed the Writ Petition assailing the order dated 23.03.2022 in R.A.P No.64/2021 (Annexure-J) passed by the Deputy Commissioner1, Kolar 1 the DC, for short

HC-KAR

District, setting aside the order dated 14.07.2021 in R.A.No.74/2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner2, Kolar Sub-division (Annexure-F). 3.2 The Writ Court having found that the order passed by the DC is bad in law, held that the AC has rightly considered the case of the petitioners and set-aside the MR No.14/1991-92 in so far as the land in question is concerned and relegated respondent No.4 to establish his rights over the property in question before the Civil Court and accordingly, allowed the Writ Petition. The order passed by the Writ Court starts with paragraph No.5 and ends with the order, is as under: "5. Taking into consideration, respondent No.2 has rightly considered the case of the petitioners and set aside the MR No.14/1991-92 insofar as the land in question is concerned, the respondent No.1 ought not to have interfered with the order passed by respondent No.2. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Needless to say that, in the event, if respondent No.4 is being aggrieved by the order of respondent No.2 in RA No.74/2019, the respondent 2 the AC, for short

HC-KAR

Nos.1 and 2 ought to have, relegated the respondent No.4 to establish his right over the property in question before Civil Court. Hence, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The order dated 23.03.2022 in R.A.P.No.64/2021 (Annexure-J) is set aside.

(iii) It is open for the respondent No.4 to establish his right over the property in question before the competent Civil Court.

(iv) The MR No.14/1991-92 made by respondent No.3 in respect of the land in question is hereby set aside and restore the earlier Mutation register in favour of the petitioners herein is concerned. 3.3 Thereafter, the petitioner in review petition, who is respondent No.4 in the Writ Petition, filed the Review Petition contending that though the Writ Court has allowed the Writ Petition and relegated him to establish his right over the property in question before the competent Civil Court and thereby set-aside the MR, however passed the order for restoration of the earlier mutation in favor of the Writ Petitioners requires to be reviewed.

HC-KAR

3.4 Considering the same, the Review Court reviewed the order passed in the Writ Court, as per Paragraph Nos.7 and 8, which reads as under: "7. In that view of the matter since the writ petitioners are claiming right over the property through inheritance, unless the rights of parties are to be crystallized before the Competent Civil Court, I am of the view that, the revenue records has to be mutated in favour of the (father of the respondent No.4- Muneppa in writ petition) i.e., late Ramappa @ Surahalli Ramappa.

8. In that view of the matter, unless rights of the parties are crystallized in the suit referred to above, the respondent No.3 is hereby directed to, restore the name of Ramappa @ Surahalli Ramappa in the revenue records." 3.5 It is this order passed in the Review Petition, is called in question in this appeal.

4. Heard, Sri.Suresha.M, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Sri.B.Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents to and Sri.Abhinav.R, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4.

5. A perusal of the order passed by the Writ Court at paragraph No.5 clearly indicates that the Writ Court having

HC-KAR

quashed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner holding as not in terms of law has observed that the AC is in accordance with law and having considered the contentions urged by respondent No.4 (petitioner in the Review Petition), held that if the respondent is aggrieved by the order passed by the AC, the DC ought to have relegated respondent No.4 to establish his right over the property in question before the Civil Court. Accordingly, allowed the Writ Petition and set-aside the order relegating respondent No.4 to the Civil Court and directed the entries to be made in favor of the petitioners.

6. The order passed in the Review Petition is just- - opposite to the observation at paragraph No.5 of the Writ Petition order, which is nothing but re-hearing the petition, which is not enjoined under the power of review. The Review Court has jurisdiction only to go into the error apparent on the face of record. We find no error in the order passed by the Writ Court, while considering the merits of the case. As such, the order passed in the Review Petition is not sustainable. Accordingly, we dismiss the Review Petition and restore the order passed by the Writ Court in W.P.No.8506/2022. We make

HC-KAR

it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the rights of either parties. The parties are to establish their rights independently before the Civil Court in the suit to be filed or if already filed and pending. It is trite that the revenue entries are not documents of title. They are just having presumptive value and always subject to the decision of the Civil Court. The Civil Court to dispose of and adjudicate the matter on the basis of the rights claimed and established before it, independently.

7. With these observations, the Writ Appeal stands disposed of.

8. In view of disposal of the Writ Appeal, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22 ct-vn