- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22009 WP No. 5967 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 5967 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI LAKSHMAIAH S/O LATE BYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS RA/T JHONNAGANAHATTI VILLAGE TAVAREKERE HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. G CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 4TH FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DIST BANGALORE - 560 009. 3. THE ASST COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH TLAUK BANGALORE - 560 009. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22009 WP No. 5967 of 2025 4. THE TAHASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TLAUK BANGALORE - 560 009. 5. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/OLATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 6. SRI. CHANDRA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 7. SRI H ANJINAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 8. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 9. SRI RUDRESH S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS THE REPONDENTS 5 TO 9 ARE R/AT HONNAGHATTI VILLAGE TAVAREKERE HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TLAUK BANGALORE - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 28/03/2015, PASSED BY THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22009 WP No. 5967 of 2025 ASST, COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION BANGALORE IN NO. RA(S) 371/2014-15 MARKED ANNEXURE- D. AND ALSO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT DATED 23/07/2024. PASSED IN CASE RP NO. 35/2015-16, MARKED AS ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. Sri. Siddharth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 4. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 28.03.2015 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 23.07.2024 in R.P.No.35/2015-16 (Annexure-E) passed by respondent No.2. 3. I have heard Sri. G. Chandrashekharaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Siddharth Baburao, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22009 WP No. 5967 of 2025 learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-D, that revenue authority has no jurisdiction to say with regard to title in respect of the subject land is concerned and accordingly, he submitted that respondent No.3 has committed an error in interfering with the earlier mutation and therefore, he sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri. Siddharth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate, argued in support of the impugned order passed by the respondent - authorities. 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 - authorities would indicate that the partition has taken place amongst the petitioner and the private respondents herein as per the partition deed dated 10.01.2002 and thereafter, mutation has been made accordingly. Thereafter, one more partition deed/affirmation - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:22009 WP No. 5967 of 2025 deed has been produced by the petitioner said to have been executed on 21.05.2008 which is signed by only Sri. Hanumanthaiah, as per Annexure-B. 7. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that the petitioner herein has already approached the Civil Court in O.S.No.193/2015 and O.S.No.371/2015 seeking declaration in respect of the subject land before the Civil Court at Magadi, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this writ petition. However, the petitioner is required to await the adjudication with respect to rights of the parties by the competent Civil Court, in the above suits. 8. The writ petition is accordingly, rejected. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35