- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11589 WP No. 4178 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 4178 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI G K V KRISHNA S/O.LATE G.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.106, 5TH CROSS, KALIDASA LAYOUT, SRINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 050. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B V BADRINATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 4. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT- 562106. 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, BIKKANAHALLIL VILLAGE, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11589 WP No. 4178 of 2025 SARJAPURA HOBLI, KANDAYA BHAVAN, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-RURAL DISTRICT-562106. 6. MUNISWAMI REDDY, S/O.LATE RAMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY L.RS. SRI.B.M.RAMESH, S/O.LATE MUNISWAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 7. SRI.B.M.CHANDRA REDDY, S/O.LATE MUNISWAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 8. SRI.B.M.VENKATASWAMI REDDY, S/O.LATE MUNISWAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R-6 TO R-8 ARE LRs,M OF MUNISWAMI REDDY RESIDING AT BIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 106. 9. SRI.M.GOPAL REDDY, S/O.LATE MUNISWAMI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, BIKKANAHALLI, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 106 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.MANJUNATH., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN ANNEXURE-N IN R.P.NO.103/2014-15 C/W. R.P.NO.102/2014- 15, ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU, DATED 02.07.2024, ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11589 WP No. 4178 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner sought to challenge the entries made in favour of the contesting respondents on the ground that, he was a recipient of an order of re-grant. 2. The Revenue Authorities, by the impugned orders, have refused to accept the plea on the ground that the entries were made on the basis of a registered sale deed of the year 1964 and also an order of Land Tribunal and there have been subsequent transactions by way of registered sale deeds and the revenue entries have been mutated according. 3. It is however the case of the petitioner that, the alienations made were void and they could not have been the basis for mutating the revenue entries. He has also sought to contend that the order of the Land - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11589 WP No. 4178 of 2025 Tribunal was after the order of re-grant passed in favor of the petitioner, and, therefore, the said orders were non-est. 4. In my view, the Revenue Authorities were perfectly justified in refusing the claim of the petitioner, simply because they would not be competent to decide as to which of the orders or the sale deeds would prevail. 5. The argument of the petitioner that the Tahsildar would have to form an opinion that the sale deed of the year of 1964 was void, because the property had vested in the State is an argument, which cannot be accepted, since the Tahsildar would be incompetent to record such a finding. 6. Similarly, the other argument that the Land Tribunal could not have conferred occupancy rights, as the petitioner had already been re-granted the land by an order of the Special Tahsildar cannot also be gone - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11589 WP No. 4178 of 2025 into by the Tahsildar and he cannot record a finding as to which order would prevail. 7. As a result, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Authorities and this writ petition is therefore dismissed. 8. However, as already observed by the Authorities, the petitioner would always have the liberty to seek for an appropriate declarative decree before the Civil Court and, if such a declarative decree is obtained against the existing Khatedars, it is obvious that the said decree would prevail and the entries would be mutated according. 9. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6