- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19658 WP No. 2704 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.2704 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. HANUMAKKA W/O LATE VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT THIMMASANDRA VILLAGE JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK BENGALURA URBAN DISTRICT - 552 157. 2. SRI A. KRISHNAPPA, S/O. LATE ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT KODAGALAHATTI VILLAGE, JALA HOBILI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562 157. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.F. KUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.OFFICE BUILDINGS, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19658 WP No. 2704 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, YELAHANKA TALUK, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064. 5. T.G. SHYAMASUNDER S/O. LATE GOPALA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT TARAHUNASE VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK, BENGALURU - 562157. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. CHINNAMAYAIAH M.T., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.P.NO.167/2023 DATED 30.09.2024 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-F, AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN R.A. (YLK) 468/2023 DATED 14.12.2023 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19658 WP No. 2704 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the Order dated 30.09.2024 in R.P.No.167/2023(Annexure-F) and the Order dated 14.12.2023 in R.A.(YLK)468/2023(Annexure-E), issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively, as illegal and sought for quashing the same. 2. I have heard Sri. V.F. Kumbar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Navya Shekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Sri. Chinnamayaiah M.T., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. 3. Sri. V.F. Kumbar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the grand father of private respondents has sold a bit of land in favour of predecessor of the petitioners therein during 1938 and thereafter, petitioners are in possession of the property in question and accordingly, submitted that since the petitioners herein are the legal heirs to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19658 WP No. 2704 of 2025 the property in question, and as the land has been alienated in favour of the predecessor of the petitioners by the grandfather of private respondent herein and therefore, he contended that, the impugned order at Annexure- E and F requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. 4. Sri. Chinnamaiah M.T., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 vehemently argued that a suit is filed in O.S.No.1100/2023 before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli and the prayer in the suit is with regard to relief of declaration and therefore, sought to justify the impugned order. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted on similar lines. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful examination of the finding recorded by respondent Nos.2 and 3, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this writ petition as petitioner No.2 has already filed O.S.No.1100/2023 before the competent Civil Court seeking relief of declaration. It is also to be noted that the petitioners herein are claiming right over the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19658 WP No. 2704 of 2025 property in question on the ground that the land in question has been sold by grandfather of respondent No.5 in favour of ancestors of the petitioners. Since the dispute has been raised with regard to title of the property in question, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this writ petition. However, it is open for the parties to agitate their rights before the Civil Court. In this regard, all contentions of the parties are kept open. 7. The writ petition is rejected accordingly. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34