- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13360 WP No. 13352 of 2024 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. 13352 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. P J AJJAPPA S/O JAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O KALLAVVANAGATHI HALLY VILLAGE, B. DURGA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK - 577526 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA - 577501 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA - 577 501 3. THE TAHSILDAR HOALKERE TALUK, HOLALKERE - 577526 4. GOWRAMMA W/O LATE G.S. MOUNESHWARAPPA, AGE MAJOR, 5. G M SHIVAMURTHY S/O LATE B.S. MOUNESHWARAPPA, AGE MAJOR, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13360 WP No. 13352 of 2024 6. G M SUSHEELA W/O MANJAPPA D/O LATE B.S. MOUNESHWALRAPPA, AGE MAJOR, 7. M. CHANDRAMMA W/O MALLIKARJUNA D/O LATE G.S. MOUNESHWARAPPA, AGE MAJOR, 8. G.S. PRABHAKARA S/O LATE G.H. SIDDAPPA, AGE MAJOR, 9. S. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE G.H. SIDDAPPA, AGE MAJOR, 10. S. MARULA SIDDAPPA S/O LATE G.H. SIDDAPPA, AGED MAJOR, 11. G.H. SHIVASHANKARAPPA S/O LATE G.H.SIDDAPPA AGE MAJOR R-4 TO R-6 AND 8 TO 11 ARE R/O UDOOGERE VILLAGE, B.DURGA HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK - 577526 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.MANJUNATH., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. HARISH.N.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 TO R-11) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN RA 183/2020-21 DTD 09.01.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R-1 IN RP 5/2024 DATED 23.02.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE- J TO THE WP, ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13360 WP No. 13352 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. This writ petition is filed challenging the order of remand which has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner in revision. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the revenue entries in his favor were made on the basis of a registered partition deed dated 14.01.2001. 3. This partition deed was challenged by G.S.Mouneshwarappa, the predecessor-in-title of respondent Nos.4 to 11 in O.S. No.7 of 2002. 4. In fact, the prayer in the suit was to cancel the partition deed and for declaration that they were the owners of the suit property. The suit property that was described in the schedule was a land bearing Sy.No.23/2P of Kallavvanagathi Hally village, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13360 WP No. 13352 of 2024 B.Durga Hobli, Holalkere Taluk, measuring 03 acres 16 guntas. 5. This suit seeking for cancellation of partition deed and for declaration was dismissed by the Trial Court on 24.04.2009. 6. In this suit, incidentally, the predecessors-in-title of the petitioner, i.e., Jayappa and his mother-- Parvathamma had raised a counter-claim in respect several other properties. The said counter-claim was in fact decreed in part and it was held that they were entitled to half a share in respect of item Nos.1 and 6 of the counter-claim schedule properties. 7. Two regular appeals were filed by the plaintiffs being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit and also by the grant of the counter-claim. 8. The regular appeal filed against the dismissal of the suit in R.A. No.47 of 2009 was dismissed. The regular appeal filed challenging the counter-claim - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13360 WP No. 13352 of 2024 was allowed and it was held that the counter-claim made by defendant Nos.2 and 3 i.e., the predecessors-in-interest of the petitioner, was unsustainable and the same was set aside. 9. The plaintiffs, whose claim for cancellation of the partition deed was rejected, did not prefer a second appeal. However, a second appeal was preferred against the allowing of the appeal and setting aside of the counter-claim, before this Court and the second appeal was dismissed. 10. The net result of these proceedings was that the claim for cancellation of the partition deed, on the basis of which the mutation had been effected in favour of the petitioner, was dismissed and the counter-claim set up by the petitioner's predecessors-in-interest was also dismissed. 11. Since it is abundantly clear that the claim for a declaration that the partition deed executed in favour - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13360 WP No. 13352 of 2024 of the petitioner on the basis of which the khata was entered, was required to be cancelled, was negatived by the Trial Court, and confirmed in appeal, which has also been accepted by the predecessors-in- interest of respondent Nos.4 to 11. 12. It is obvious that the entry already made in favor of the petitioner on the basis of the partition deed cannot be called in question. 13. In light of the fact that the partition deed executed in favor of the petitioner has been upheld and confirmed in appeal, the Assistant Commissioner could not have remanded the matter to make a further inquiry as to whether there is any further litigation in respect of the properties in question. 14. Consequently, the order of remand passed by the Assistant Commissioner and its confirmation by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13360 WP No. 13352 of 2024 15. The writ petition is therefore allowed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60