- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20160 WP No. 7181 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.7181 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KAVERAMMA W/O LATE BELLIGA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS 2. SHRI. SENAPPA S/O LATE BELLIGA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 3. SMT. YALLAMMA W/O MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 4. SHRI ANJINAPPA S/O LATE MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS 5. SMT. KAVITHA D/O ALTE MADAPPA W/O VENKATASWAMY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 6. SMT. GOURAMMA D/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 7. SHRI LOKESH K S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 8. SHRI. AMBARISH K S/O LATE KRISHNAPPA Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20160 WP No. 7181 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 9. SMT. MANJULA W/O LATE RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 10. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 11. SRI. MURTHY S/O LATE RAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT ADURU VILLAGE VIRAGONAGAR POST BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN KANDAY ABHAVAN K G ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN K.G. ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE THASHILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20160 WP No. 7181 of 2024 4. SMT. KAVERAMMA W/O LATE MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS 5. SHRI. MUNIRAJU S/O LATE MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 6. SHRI. ANAND S/O ALTE MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 7. SHRI. SRINIVAS @ SEENAPPA S/O LATE MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 8. SHRI. RAVIKUMAR @ RAVI. M S/O LATE MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS 9. SHRI SHASHIKUMAR S/O LATE MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS 10. SMT. BHAGYA D/O LATE MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 11. SHRI. MUNIVEERAPPA @ KAVERAPPA S/O LATE MUNIANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS. 4 TO 11 ARE R/AT ADURU VILLAGE VIRAGONAGAR POST - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20160 WP No. 7181 of 2024 BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU ESAST TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/RESPONDENT NO.1, IN REVISION PETITION NO.118/2022-23, DATED 02.12.2023, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - RESPONDENT NO.2 IN R.A.(BE)82/2022, DATED 30.01.2023, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B; 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 Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents 1 to 3. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 02.12.2023 in R.P.No.118 of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20160 WP No. 7181 of 2024 2022-23 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1 and order dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure-B), in R.A. (BE):82 of 2022 on the file of the respondent No.2 inter-alia sought for direction to the respondent- authorities to restore in the name of original grantee. 4. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the finding recorded by the respondent No.2, at paragraph 14, wherein the mutation has been made in favour of the private respondents herein as per the registered document. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that, the petitioners herein have filed suit in OS No.763 of 2019 before Senior Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District. In that view of the matter, since the mutation has been changed in terms of registered Sale Deed, the finding recorded by both the respondent-authorities is just and proper and no interference is called for in this writ petition. It is also - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20160 WP No. 7181 of 2024 submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the registered document produced by the private respondents herein is challenged by the petitioners in the above suit, which is pending consideration before the competent court. Hence, the present petitioner is not maintainable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31