1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF JUNE 2012 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.L. MANJUNATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE V. SURI APPA RAO W.A.NO.4793 OF 2010(KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1 M MUNIRAJU S/O LATE DODDAMARAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS NO 19/3, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR BANGALORE 560038 2 SRI NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE M VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO 68, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560038 3 SRI SRINIVASA S/O LATE M VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO 68, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560038 4 SRI NAGARAJA S/O LATE M VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO 68, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR, 2 BANGALORE 560038 5 SRI SAMPATH S/O LATE M VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO 68, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560038 6 SRI MURTHY S/O LATE VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/AT NO 68, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560038 7 SRI GANESH S/O LATE VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO 68, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560038 8 SRI UMESH S/O LATE VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS R/AT NO 68, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560038 9 SRI RAJESH S/O LATE VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO 68, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE 560038 10 SRI RAVIKUMAR S/O LATE VENKATARAJU AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT NO 68, NEW BINNAMANGALA INDIRANAGAR, 3 BANGALORE 560038 ... APPELLANTS (By Sri: M S VARADARAJAN, ADV., ) AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560 001 2 THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK KRISHNARAJAPURAM BANGALORE 560036 3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVSION PODIUM BLOCK BANGALORE 560 001 4 THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K G ROAD, BANGALORE 560 009 5 SRI NAVEEN S/O LATE B T VENKATARAM AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS R/AT NO 391, I N BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR, BANGALORE 10 6 SMT VANDITHA D/O LATE B T VENKATARAM AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS R/AT NO 391, I N BLOCK RAJAJJINAGAR, BANGALORE 10 4 7 SRI T VIJAYAKUMAR S/O H THIPPA REDDTY AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT KUNDALAHALLI GATE KRISHNARAJAPURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri:M. KESHAVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 -4 ) -------- THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.28619/2010(KLR-RES) DATED 10/11/2010. THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, K.L. MANJUNATH. J , DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:- JUDGMENT By consent, the appeal is taken up for preliminary hearing. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1 to 4. The short question that arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal is whether the learned Single Judge is justified in setting aside the order passed By the revenue authorities in 5 W.P.No.28619/2010. The dispute is regard to change of mutation in respect of 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.122/3 of Kundalahalli village, K.R. Puram HoBli, Bangalore East Taluk. It is the case of the appellants that appellant No.1 and his late Brother M. Venkataraju were aBsolute owners of the aforesaid land. Appellant Nos.2 to 10 are the children of his late Brother M. Venkataraju. The appellant No.1 and his Brother M. Venkataraju executed sale deed on 20 th July 2004 in favour of one Thimmamma @ Shantamma conveying 1/70 th undivided share for `20,000/-. Release deed was also executed By appellant No.1 and his Brother Ventakaraju in favour of Thimmamma @ Shantamma releasing the property for a sum of `20,000/- on the same day, which document is denied By the appellants. Based on the sale-deed and release deed, mutation has Been transferred to 6 the name of Thimmamma @ Shanthamma. The mutation entry was questioned By the appellants in R.A.No.175/2007-2008 Before the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North SuB-Division, which appeal came to Be allowed, against which, T.Vijayakumar-purchaser from Thimmamma preferred a revision Before the Spl. Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in Revision petition No.270/2008, which revision petition came to Be dismissed on 28.6.2010. Challenging the same, writ petition was filed By T. Vijayakumar. In the mean-while, the appellants have filed a suit challenging the release deed in O.S.No.5380/2008 Before the Civil Court, Bangalore which is pending decision. 2. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that when the Tahsildhar has changed the khatha Based on the 7 release deed and sale deed, the order passed By the Assistant Commissioner and Spl. Deputy Commissioner are to Be set-aside. He further held that in the event respondents-appellants herein succeed in O.S.No.5380/2008, the revenue entries shall Be restored in favour of the appellants. With the aBove directions, writ petitions were allowed. Challenging the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and Addl. Govt. Advocate, we do not see any error committed By the learned Single Judge for the following reasons:- Admittedly, the appellants are not disputing the execution of the sale deed. The appellants are only disputing the execution of release deed. To contend release deed is fraudulent and not Binding on them, suit is also instituted in the year 2008. 8 Revenue entries were transferred in the name of the purchaser Based on the registered release deed and sale deed. In such circumstances, the learned Single Judge has held that in the event the appellants succeeds in the suit, revenue entries have to Be restored and till then, the mutation entries standing in the name of the purchaser shall continue and if such order is passed, no Court can hold that the learned Single Judge has committed an error. In the circumstances, appeal is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *mn/-.