- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21696 WP No. 35112 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 35112 OF 2012 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) 1(b) 1(c) 1(d) 1(e) SRI CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs, SRI C. DASEGOWDA, S/O SRI CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A NAGARBHAVI VILLAGE, OPP. TO MARUTHI TEMPLE, I.S.E.C. ROAD, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE 560 072. SRI C.JAGADEESHA, S/O SRI CHIKKATHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/A NAGARBHAVI VILLAGE, OPP. TO MARUTHI TEMPLE, I.S.E.C. ROAD, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALROE 560 072. SMT. C. PADMA, W/O SRI MAHADEV, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/A NO.20, 6TH CROSS, PRIYADARSHINI LAYOUT, MUDALAPALYA, BANGALORE - 560 072. SMT. GANGAMMA, W/O SRI RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/A NO.3163/1, TUNGABHADRA STREET, NAGARABHAVI ROAD, MARUTHI NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 072. SMT. NAGARATHNA, W/O SRI SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21696 WP No. 35112 of 2012 1(f) 1(g) R/A NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE, OPP. TO MARUTHI TEMPLE, I.S.E.C. ROAD, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE - 560 072. SMT. KEMPARATHNA, W/O LATE SRI RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/A NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE, OPP. TO MARUTHI TEMPLE, I.S.E.C. ROAD, NAGARABHAVI, BANGALORE - 560 072. SRI NAVEEN, S/O KADIREPATHI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/A NO.80, 2ND MAIN ROAD, LAGGERE, BANGALORE - 560 058. …PETITIONERS [BY SRI S.RAJENDRA, ADVOCATE (VC)] AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, (LAND GRANTS) M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, D.C. COMPOUND, BANGALORE 560 009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE. 4. BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, KITTOR RANI CHENNAMMA CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560 009, REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI MANJUNATH K., AGA FOR R1-R3; SRI B.V. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4] - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21696 WP No. 35112 of 2012 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY R2 VIDE ANNX-AE DATED 22.9.10 TO THE EXTENT IT PERTAINS TO SY NO.143 OF NAGARABHAVI VILLAGE BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B-GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order bearing No.LND(N)CR:3/10-11 dated 22.09.2010 (Annexure- AE) passed by the respondent No.2. 2. Heard, Sri. S. Rajendra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents - State and Sri. B.V. Muralidhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 - BBMP. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the rights of the parties has to be crystallized in a pending appeal before this Court in RFA.No.2196/2022 filed under Section 96 of CPC. It is also submitted that, when the matter is pending consideration before this Court, the respondents authorities have issued the impugned order at Annexure-AE and also learned counsel - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21696 WP No. 35112 of 2012 submitted that, the said impugned order at Annexure-AE was passed during the pendency of W.A.No.218/2008 at Annexure- Y, and as such, learned counsel contended that the respondents have no authority to issue the impugned order at Annexure-AE. 4. Per-contra, Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents - State submitted that, the petitioners is having an efficacious remedy before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 49(c) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, ('Act' for short). 5. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that, the impugned order at Annexure-AE passed by the respondent No.2 by exercising the power under Section 71 of the Act, the remedy available for the petitioners is to approach the competent authority under Section 49(c) of the Act. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that, the writ petition is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57