- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12279 WP No. 5980 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 5980 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT.THAYAMMA W/O LATE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) 2. SRI MANJUNATH S/O LATE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 3. SRI SOMU S/O LATE NINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 4. SMT MANJULA W/O LATE RAMESH D/O LATE NINGAPPA , 5. SMT BASAMMA W/O LATE NINGEGOWDA , AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) ALL ARE RESIDENT OF BASVANAHALLI VILLAGE, KIKKERI HOBLI, K R PET TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571432. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12279 WP No. 5980 of 2025 REP BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALURU - 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PARK ROAD 2, PES COLLEGE CAMPUS, NEAR DISTRICT COURT, MANDYA KARNATAKA - 571401. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PANDAVAPURA TQ, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571434. 4. THE TAHASILDHAR OFFICE OF THE TALUK KECHERI, K R PETE TQ, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571426. 5. SRI RANGEGOWDA S/O JANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/A BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE, HIKKERI HOBLI, K R PETE TQ, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571432. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH.K, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 15.11.24 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN CASE NO. RP NO. 214/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE- C AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 20/05/2022 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN CASE NO. R.MISC,264)/2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND TO RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 30/4/2021 PASSED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT IN CASE NO. RRT(COURT) 31/2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE-A DATED:30.10.2021 IN SO FAR AS THE LAND IN SY.NO. 47/1 TO THE EXTENT 3 ACRES 9 GUNTAS IS CONCERNED, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12279 WP No. 5980 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. A request was made by the petitioners to restore the order dated 30.04.2021, wherein the Thasildar had proceeded to pass an order to mutate the names on the basis of the inheritance. 2. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.5 - Rangegowda preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner after taking note of the two sale deeds executed in favour of Rangegowda directed the mutation to be made in accordance with the sale deeds of the year 1971. This order of the Assistant Commissioner has been confirmed in Revision. As against which the present Writ Petition is filed. 3. As already noticed above, the Assistant Commissioner has directed the mutation to be made in accordance with the terms of the three registered - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12279 WP No. 5980 of 2025 sale deeds, one in respect of 3 acres 9 guntas and two in respect of 1 acre 20 guntas each. 4. In my view, since the Authorities have only acted in terms of the registered sale deed and ordered to register the katha, accordingly no fault can be found with the orders passed by the Authorities. 5. It is also forthcoming from the material on record i.e., Annexure-D that Rangegowda the person who claimed title under the two sale deeds has also filed a suit for declaration in respect of the very same property in question and it is, therefore, clear that the entitlement of the Rangegowda over 1 acre 20 guntas will ultimately be decided in O.S. No.638/2021 and the revenue entries accordingly would be mutated on the basis of the said decree. 6. I, therefore, find no reason to entertain this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:12279 WP No. 5980 of 2025 7. However, it is made clear that registration of katha would be subject to the result of O.S. No.638/2021. It is also made clear that if the petitioners were to institute a suit seeking for an appropriate decree of declaration in their favour, the revenue entries would also be bound by the decree that may be passed in such a suit. 8. It is needless to state that all contentions of either of the parties are left open to adjudicate before the Civil Court. 9. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13