JUDGMENT : VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ. 1. For the reasons stated in the affidavits accompanying the applications seeking condonation of delay, the same are allowed. The delay in filing the appeals is condoned. 2. The appellant has filed the present appeals impugning a common order dated 03.06.2024 [ impugned order ] passed by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions being W.P.No.17888/2015 (KLR-RR-SUR) connected with W.P.No.48758/2014, W.P.No.49776/2014, W.P.No.50678/2014, W.P.No.51209/2014 and W.P.No.58454/2014. 3. The writ petitioners in the said petitions are arrayed as respondents in the respective appeals arising from the impugned common order passed in the writ petitions. 4. The controversy involved is in a narrow compass and is common, therefore, the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 5. The facts relevant to W.A.No.904/2025 are referred, as the facts in this case are substantially similar to the facts arising in the other appeals as well. 6. The writ petitioners had filed their respective petition impugning an order dated 23.07.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru (arrayed as respondent No.22 in W.A.No.904/2025) in Revision Petition No.294/2011-12. 7. The appellant had filed the said revision petition assailing an order dated 10.08.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division, Bengaluru in No.R.A.(BN)166/2010-11. In terms of the said order, the Assistant Commissioner had rejected the petition (being RRT(D)40/2008-09) impugning an order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru, observing that the application can be entertained as per the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [ KLR Act ], for withdrawing the land conversion order. And, only after the withdrawal of the same, any action can be taken for transfer of Khatha in terms of the partition deed dated 25.03.1982, which was relied upon by the appellant. 8. The appellant claims rights in the lands falling in Survey No.45/3 by virtue of the unregistered partition deed dated 25.03.1982. He seeks that the Record of Rights also reflects his name in respect of portion of lands falling in Survey No.45/3 as the owner. The writ petitioners had purchased the lands by registered sale deeds that were executed after the land had been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purposes. They claim that the revenue authorities do not have the jurisdiction to change land records after the same have been converted to residential lands, formed in a layout within the municipal limits. 9. The writ petitioners had purchased the lands by registered sale deeds that were executed after the land had been converted from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purposes. They claim that the revenue authorities do not have the jurisdiction to change land records after the same have been converted to residential lands, formed in a layout within the municipal limits. 9. Briefly stated, the facts are that under a registered sale deed dated 08.11.1958, Sri Thammannappa alias Thammanna, the father of the appellant, had purchased the lands from one Sri Andanappa measuring 4 acres and 16 guntas falling in Survey No. 45/3, Gidadakonenahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru in favour of his three sons, who have been arrayed as respondent Nos.6 to 8 (Sri Ramakrishnaiah, Sri Kempanna and Sri Lakshmihanumantharayappa). The said respondents were minors at the material time and their father, Sri Thammanna, had executed the sale deed as their guardian. Sri Thammanna had two more sons other than the appellant, i.e. (Sri Byregowda and Sri Hanumaiah). 10. On the basis of the said registered sale deed in their favour, respondent Nos.6 to 8 approached the Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk and the subject land was mutated in their names vide M.R.No.4/58-59. 11. Thereafter, on 21.10.2003, the said respondents approached the Deputy Commissioner seeking conversion of the subject land from agricultural to non-agricultural residential purposes. Their application was allowed and the subject land was converted for non-agricultural purposes in terms of the conversion order bearing No.BDS:ALN:SR(S):110/03-04 dated 08.12.2003. The said respondents also paid the requisite conversion charges. On the land being converted, a mutation entry being M.R.No.8/2004-05 was effected on 30.07.2004 to reflect the conversion of the land in the revenue records. 11.1 The appellant claims that although the subject land was purchased by his father in the names of respondent Nos.6 to 8, the subject property was in the nature of a joint family property and on 25.03.1982, the family members entered into an unregistered partition deed, dividing the family properties including the subject land. The appellant claims that 1 acre 18 guntas out of the total area of 4 acres and 16 guntas of the subject land fell to his share. However, no change in the Khatha was effected at the material time. The appellant also claims that all the other family members are in physical possession of the properties that had fallen to their share. However, no change in the Khatha was effected at the material time. The appellant also claims that all the other family members are in physical possession of the properties that had fallen to their share. However, respondent Nos.26 and 27 had sold their share of the subject land to third parties. 12. The appellant filed an appeal being R.A.No.71/06-07 before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the order of the Special Tahsildar, which was allowed by an order dated 16.06.2008 and the matter was remanded back to Tahsildar to pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, the Tahsildar passed an order dated 30.07.2009 rendering an opinion that the application can be submitted as per the KLR Act for withdrawing the land conversion order and only after the withdrawal of the same, the name of the appellant would be entered in the Khatha. 13. The writ petitioners state that, in the meanwhile respondent Nos.25 to 27 executed a General Power of Attorney (GPA) in favour of one Sri Sachidananda (GPA holder) who formed a layout which was approved by the Village Panchayath of Herohalli. He sold various sites to the writ petitioners in August and September 2004 by sale deeds which were registered with the Sub-Registrar, Bengaluru North Taluk, Bengaluru. The sites thus came to be registered in the name of the writ petitioners. 14. The appellant filed a revision petition before the Assistant Commissioner being R.A.(BN)166/2010-11 impugning the order dated 30.07.2009 passed by the Special Tahsildar. The said petition was rejected by an order dated 10.08.2011 on the ground that the subject land had been converted in terms of the conversion order dated 08.12.2003 passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and therefore, the Assistant Commissioner did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Section 136(2) of the KLR Act. 15. The appellant assailed the said order by filing a revision petition being Revision Petition No.294/2011-12 before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the said appeal and held that the subject land was a joint family property and was partitioned between the family members in terms of the partition deed dated 25.03.1982. The Deputy Commissioner held that once the partition deed is produced, it was incumbent on the competent authority to effect mutation of the land according to the tenor of the partition deed. The Deputy Commissioner held that once the partition deed is produced, it was incumbent on the competent authority to effect mutation of the land according to the tenor of the partition deed. Therefore, the name of the appellant was required to be mutated in respect of the lands that fell into his share in terms of the partition deed. The Deputy Commissioner directed that entries be made in the revenue records taking into account the partition deed dated 25.03.1982. 16. The said order was challenged by the writ petitioners by filing the writ petitions which were allowed in terms of the impugned order. 17. It is also material to note that one of the person who had purchased site from respondent Nos.25 to 27 had filed a suit for injunction being O.S.No.1174/2013 before XX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru against the appellant. The said suit was decreed. The appellant had challenged the said judgment and decree dated 01.12.2016 by filing a Regular First Appeal (R.F.A.No.18/2017), which was dismissed by the order dated 02.02.2024. 18. The learned Single Judge had noted that by virtue of the judgment and decree dated 01.12.2016 passed in O.S.No.1174/2013, the Court had accepted that the subsequent purchasers were in possession. The learned Single Judge also faulted the Deputy Commissioner for interfering with the mutation entries and directing the change of mutation entries after the land had been converted for non-agricultural purposes. Since it is no longer an agricultural land, the entries in the land records cannot be directed to be changed. 19. We concur with the decision of the learned Single Judge. Since the subject land was converted for residential purposes and a layout, which now falls within the municipal limits, was approved, no direction under the KLR Act for altering the land revenue records could be issued at this stage. 20. The appellant claims title to a part of the subject land which was converted and has since been sold to the writ petitioners. The dispute as to the title can be adjudicated only in a civil court. 21. In view of the above, the present appeals are dismissed. 22. Pending applications are also disposed of.