- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19657 WP No. 5811 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.5811 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. P. L. PUTTALAKSHAMMA W/O. SRI. K.R. SUBBARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, KALLUDI GRAMA, KASABA HOBLI, GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGENDRA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLPURA SUB DIVISION, CHIKKABALLAPURA - 562 101. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19657 WP No. 5811 of 2025 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKABALLPURA, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562 101. 4. SMT. GANGALAKSMAMMA W/O. K.G. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT KALLUDI GRAMA, KASABA HOBLI, GAURIBIDANUR TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 208. 5. THE TAHASILDAR GAURIBIDANUR TALUK CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT - 561 208. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 & R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER I.E. RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.A NO.60/2015- 16 DATED 03.03.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-F; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER - RESPONDENT NO.3 IN R.A NO.15/2023-24 DATED 24.01.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-G. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19657 WP No. 5811 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the Order dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure-F) passed by respondent No.2 and Order dated 24.01.2025 (Annexure-G) passed by respondent No.3. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that, petitioner is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.134/12 measuring 1 acre 23 guntas situate at Kalludi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Gowribidanur Taluk and she has acquired the same from her ancestors. It is also stated that record of rights in respect of the land stands in the name of the petitioner as per Annexure-A. Private respondent has challenged the mutation made by respondent - authority in RRT/(K)/CR/55/2006-07 dated 18.08.2006 before the second respondent herein and the second respondent, vide Order dated 03.03.2023 (Annexure-F), has allowed the appeal preferred by respondent No.4 herein and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein had preferred appeal before respondent No.3 as per Annexure-G. Respondent No.3, vide Order dated 24.01.2025, after considering the entire material - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19657 WP No. 5811 of 2025 on record has passed the impugned order at Annexure-G, rejecting the claim made by the petitioner herein. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri. Nagendra Kumar K., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Siddharth Baburao, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, respondent - authorities without calling for records have passed the impugned Orders at Annexures - F and G, which requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the respondent - authorities and further submitted that a suit in O.S.No.95/2022 has been preferred before the competent Civil Court in respect of the subject land and the same is pending consideration and in that view of the matter, since disputed questions of fact are involved, the writ petition may be dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19657 WP No. 5811 of 2025 6. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by both respondent - authorities as per Annexures - F & G with respect to the proceedings in RRT/(K)/CR/55/2006-07, dated 18.08.2006. Accordingly, taking into consideration that O.S.No.95/2022 is pending consideration before the competent Civil Court and also disputed questions of fact with regard to title have to be decided between and amongst parties in the suit, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this writ petition and petitioner has to await the adjudication of the suit in O.S.No.95/2022. 7. With the above observation, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35