- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:4929 WP No. 1461 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 1461 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT GANGAMMA W/O LATE B BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS R/AT NO 42, 1ST MAIN 4TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR NANJANAGUDU, MYSURU 570009 BENEFIT OF SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED PRESENTY R/AT DOOR NO 125 NEAR PAVITHRA VIDYA MANDIRA MANGANAHALLI BENGALURU 560 060. 2. S K SRINIVAS S/O KEMPAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT NO 1388 VIJAYANAGAR, 2ND STAGE OPP J.S.S P.U COLLEGE MYSORE 570017. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. O SHIVARAMA BHAT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER MYSURU REGION VINOBHA ROAD OPP. KALAMANDHIR MYSURU 570005. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:4929 WP No. 1461 of 2025 2. THE COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL NANAJANGUDU MYSURU 571301. 3. THE DIRECTOR FOR PLANNING DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT CELL MYSURU DISTRICT MYSURU 571301. 4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GRAMA PANCHAYATH NANJANAGUDU MYSURU 571301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA FOR R1 & R3; SRI. P MAHESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27/10/2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NO.£À¸ÀPÁ.£ÀA.PÀ.±Á/¦.Dgï-14/2023-24, AND THE COMMUNICATION DATED 15/09/2023 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NO. £À¸ÀPÁ/PÀA.±À/¹.Dgï-33/2022-23 AND ALSO THE NOTICE DATED 14/03/2024 IN CASE NO.ID MUN.RP.04/2024 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A, A1 AND A2 RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:4929 WP No. 1461 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are challenging an order by which the khatas registered in respect of certain properties have been cancelled. 2. The petitioners contends that the Commissioner of the Town Municipal Council Nanjangudu did not possess jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that, as against the very same order, the petitioners had invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Regional Commissioner and the same is pending consideration. 4. In my view, since the petitioners had already invoked the revisional jurisdiction of the Regional Commissioner, he cannot obviously pursue a parallel remedy by filing this writ petition. 5. This writ petition is therefore dismissed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:4929 WP No. 1461 of 2025 6. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to challenge the order of the Regional Commissioner, if it goes against him. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2