- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:12212 WP No. 8251 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 8251 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT NARAYNAMMA W/O VENKATAPPA D/O LATE MUNEEMMA @ PAKARAHALLI MUNEEMMA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, BANDARAHALLI VILLAGE DUGGASANDRA HOBLI MULABAGILU TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563127 (SENIOR CITIZEN NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ERAPPA REDDY M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TASHILDAR MULABAGILU TALUK MULABAGILU, KOLAR DISTRICT-563131 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR-563101 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563101 4. SMT. JAYAMMA W/O GANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS BANDARAHALLI VILLAGE Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:12212 WP No. 8251 of 2025 DUGGASANDRA HOBLI MULABAGALU TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563127 …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 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN MR. NO. H2/2015-16 IN RESPECT OF 2 ACRES IN SY NO.82 OF KRISHNAPURA, DUGASANDRA HOBLI, MULABAGILU TALUK AS PER ANNEXURE-N, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. An order of mutation made in favour of respondent No.4 was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal. 2. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the said plea on the ground that though the petitioner's claim that his mother had purchased the property under a registered sale deed in the year 1965, his mother's request to mutate her name on the basis of the sale deed was rejected and, therefore, the petitioner had no right to challenge the revenue entries mutated in - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:12212 WP No. 8251 of 2025 favour of respondent No.4. This order of Assistant Commissioner has been confirmed in Revision by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has noticed that the mother of the petitioner had not challenged the rejection of her claim for mutation and the petitioner could not therefore challenge the mutation made in favour of respondent No.4. 3. It is also to be noticed here that the petitioner's mother claimed title under a registered sale deed, but the claim for registration of her name in the revenue records was rejected in the year 1969. 4. The petitioner's mother passed away, admittedly, in the year 1980 and an application for mutating the name of the petitioner is only stated to have been filed in the year 1999 i.e., after 19 years, and thereafter no steps have been taken pursuant to this application. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:12212 WP No. 8251 of 2025 5. The petitioner has, in fact, proceeded to challenge the order passed in favour of respondent No.4 only in the year 2016-17 and these facts by themselves justify the reason of the Deputy Commissioner that the essential dispute between the parties was civil in nature and, therefore, the petitioner was required to approach the Civil Court and secure an appropriate decree. I find no reason to entertain this Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 6. 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.: 23