- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13365 WP No. 7913 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 7913 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT SHANTHAMMA W/O SRI MANYA NAIK AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 2. SRI RAMA NAIK S/O SRI RUPLA NAIK AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT GUTTIKATTE LAMBADI HATTI 577554 KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER SRI M PAPANAIK AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS R/AT GUTTIKATTE, KASABAHOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTEMNT OF REVENUE DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001 2. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT CHITRDURGA 577501 Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13365 WP No. 7913 of 2025 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB DIVISON CHITRADURGA 577501 4. SMT SUSHEELA BAI D/O LATE RAMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 5. SMT JAYA BAI D/O LT RAMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS 6. SMT SHOBHA RANI W/O SRI R BASAVARAJ NAIK AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS 7. SMT PREMA BAI D/O LATE RAMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 8. SMT BHARATHI BAI D/O LATE RAMA NAIK AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R-4 TO R-8 ARE R/AT GUTTIKATTE LAMBADI HATTI 577554 KASABA HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 21.01.2025 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN R.P NO. 25/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DTD 19.12.2023 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN APPEAL R.A NO. 565/2016- 17, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13365 WP No. 7913 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. A petitioner is calling in question the order of remand passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 2. The Deputy Commissioner has noticed that the petitioner was basing his right to have his name entered on the basis of a sale deed of the year 1972. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that though this sale deed was of the year 1972, the revenue entries were ultimately mutated in the year 2016. 4. In my view, in light of this fact, the order of remand made by the Deputy Commissioner in which he has directed the Assistant Commissioner to examine all the records prior to grant the mutation, cannot be found fault with. 5. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13365 WP No. 7913 of 2025 6. All contentions of both the parties are obliviously left open to be adjudicated. 7. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22