- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:17274 WP No. 9766 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 9766 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. BORE GOWDA H.N. AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O SRI NANJE GOWDA, PERMANENT R/O HODAKEGHATTA VILLAGE, DABBEGHATTA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101 CURRENTLY RESIDING AT NO.150/10, R V RESIDENCY, DOOR NO.13, 3RD FLOOR, 1ST A MAIN ROAD, KORAMANGALA 8TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 095 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGARJUN N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, VISHVESHWARAIAH TOWER, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001 Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:17274 WP No. 9766 of 2025 2. THE CHIEF OFFICE BELLURU TOWN PANCHAYATHI, BELLURU, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 418 … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE R-2 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD 23.12.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-S INSOFAR AS PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed the present petition seeking for issuance of writ of certiorari to set aside the impugned order at Annexure-'S' dated 23.12.2024 insofar as the petitioner is concerned. 2. Various contentions have been raised including that the proceedings have been initiated challenging the Khatha in favour of petitioner after an unreasonable period of time and that the petitioner's mother was the owner of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:17274 WP No. 9766 of 2025 the property having obtained the rights under the Sale Deed dated 22.09.2012. It is further submitted that subsequently, by Gift Deed dated 14.02.2022, the same was conveyed by the petitioner's mother to the petitioner. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 would point out that as against the order as at Annexure-'S', the petitioner can avail of the statutory remedy of revision as provided under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. 4. Taking note of the availability of statutory remedy as regards the impugned order, it would be appropriate to relegate the petitioner to avail of the remedy of filing Revision Petition as against the impugned order under Section 322 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. The petitioner to avail of such remedy within a period of four weeks. If a Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner in terms of the statutory remedy within four weeks from today, the same may be taken on record by - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:17274 WP No. 9766 of 2025 the Authority without raising any objection regarding the delay. 5. However, the impugned order would be kept in abeyance till the Authority were to consider and pass orders regarding the interim order that would be sought for in the Revision proceedings to be initiated by the petitioner challenging the impugned order. All contentions are kept open. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- (S SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE VGR