- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17657 WP No. 32162 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 32162 OF 2013 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI. PILLAPPA S/O LATE DODDA VENKATA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RES.AT: MYLASANDRA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH-560 068. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURESH KUMAR .K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE-02. 3. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE-02. 4. REVENUE INSPECTOR BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH-560002. 5. THE TALUK SERVEYOR BEGUR HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH-560002. 6. THE CHAIRMAN KPTCL, K.R.CIRCLE, BANGALORE-01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17657 WP No. 32162 of 2013 SRI. S. SRIRANGA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R6.) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY R-2 IN RRT (S) CR 84/2012-13 DATED 28.6.2013 AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. In this case, the very same order of the Deputy Commissioner which was impugned in the connected two writ petitions i.e., WP.No.32726/2013 and WP.No.31725/2016 is called in question. However, in contradistinction of said connected petitions, in this case, the Government has taken up a stand that there was no grant in favour of the petitioner’s predecessor-in-title on 30.08.1940 as contended by the petitioner. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17657 WP No. 32162 of 2013 2. It is also contended by the respondents that the petitioner herein has also instituted a suit in OS.No.549/2008 seeking a declaration that he has become the owner of the property in question by way of adverse possession. 3. In my view, since the petitioner is before the Civil Court seeking a declaration that he is the owner of the property in question, entertaining of this writ petition would be improper and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to prosecute the suit in which he has sought for declaration. All contentions of the petitioner are left open to be agitated before the Civil Court. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 109