- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12986 WP No. 13888 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 13888 OF 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. DR C S HANUMANTHAIAH SON OF LATE SANJEEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL ROAD GAYATHRI EXTENSION CHANNARAYAPATNA 573 116 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.K.SHRIKARA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE DR AMBEDKAR VEEDI, M S BUILDING BANGALORE 560 001 2. OFFICE OF THE JOINT SECRETARY TO THE CHIEF MINISTER VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR AMBEDKAR ROAD SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE 560 001 3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, MYSORE HIGH VIEW, VINOBA ROAD OPPOSITE KALAMANDIR MYSORE 570 005 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN 573 201 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12986 WP No. 13888 of 2014 5. SRI MAHESH SON OF LATE JAVAREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS HOUSE NO.115 CHAMPAKANAGAR EXTENSION SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN DISTRICT 573 201 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4; SRI. B.S.GOUTHAM., ADVOCATE FOR R-5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.30.1.2014 PASSED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNEX-A AS ILLEGAL AND WHOLLY ARBITRARY, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner. 2. The Deputy Commissioner was moved by respondent No.5 questioning M.R. No.54/1997-98 which was made out in favour of the petitioner's vendor's vendor. 3. The Deputy Commissioner, after considering the matter, has exercised his powers under Section 25 of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12986 WP No. 13888 of 2014 the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') and has set aside the order of mutation made in favour of the petitioner's vendor's vendor in M.R. No.54/1997-98 on the ground that the mutation was fraudulent and concocted. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Deputy Commissioner could not have passed the impugned order merely on the basis of the complaint of respondent No.5, who had approached every other Authority to ensure that petitioner's right over the land was denied. He submitted that despite representation given that the petitioner was claiming title over the property, the same had been disregarded and the impugned order has been passed. 5. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has instituted a suit in O.S. No.106/2014 seeking for a declaration that he is the owner of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12986 WP No. 13888 of 2014 property in question and the suit is pending consideration. 6. In the light of the above, without going into the merits or demerits of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it would be appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition by holding that the right to get the entries in favour of the petitioner would be dependent on the outcome of O.S. No.106/2014. If the petitioner's title is to be declared by the Civil Court, it is obvious that the revenue authorities would have to abide by the said order and mutate his name in the revenue records. Subject to the above observation, Writ Petition is disposed of. 7. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory application, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33