- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11758 WP No. 46372 of 2016 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. 46372 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE CHIKKA BYATAPPA, AGED 55 YEARS, 2. RATHNAMMA W/O MUNIRAJU, AGED 43 YEARS, 3. NARAYANASWAMY S/O MUNIRAJU, AGED 32 YEARS, P-1 TO 3 ARE R/AT MITHANAHALLI VILLAGE, JANGAMAKOTE HOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.V.NARASIMHA MURTHY., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVAS.B.V, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALAPUR-562101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPUR-562101. 3. THE TAHSILDAR Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11758 WP No. 46372 of 2016 SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, SIDLAGHATTA-562105. 4. B RAJANNA S/O LATE DODDA BYATAPA, AGED 60 YEARS, R/AT YALUVAHALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562135. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. V.SUDHAKAR., ADVOCATE FOR R-4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED:6.6.2016 PASSED BY THE R-1 AT ANNEXURE-AB, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. The Assistant Commissioner directed the mutation to be effected in accordance with the registered sale deed. This order has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in revision. 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioners herein had in fact instituted a suit in O.S. No.386 of 2012 even before the Assistant Commissioner passed an order - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11758 WP No. 46372 of 2016 in the year 2013 and the said suit was filed against the contesting respondent herein seeking for a declaration that the petitioners had title over the suit properties and more importantly, for cancellation of the sale deed dated 22.07.1950 which was executed in favour of the predecessors-in-title of the respondents. 3. In fact, this pendency of the suit was also noticed by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order. 4. In light of the fact that the petitioners are admittedly before the Civil Court, seeking for a declaration and they also admit that there is a sale deed dated 22.07.1950, which they are seeking for cancellation, it is obvious that the revenue entries will have to stand in accordance with the sale deed dated 22.07.1950. 5. The orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are therefore correct and cannot be interfered with. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11758 WP No. 46372 of 2016 6. However, it is made clear that in the event the Civil Court decrees O.S. No.386 of 2012 in favour of the petitioners and holds that they are the owners of the properties, the revenue entries will have to abide by the result of the suit. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52