- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20437 WP No. 11387 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 11387 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. NARAYANAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIRAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT SAMETHANAHLLI VILLAGE AND POST, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE – 560 067. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, IST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANAHALLI HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE – 562 110. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20437 WP No. 11387 of 2022 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 560 067. 4. SRI. B. VENKATARAMANAPPA, S/O LATE BODAPPA @ MUNIYAPPA, R/AT SAMETANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE – 560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO REVISION PETITION NO.68/2019 FORM THE FILE OF THE R1, AND ALSO THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO RA(HO)150/2013.14 FROM THE FILE OF THE R2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20437 WP No. 11387 of 2022 ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the Order dated 08.02.2024 in R.P.No.68/2019 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1 confirming the Order dated 10.03.2015 (Annexure-B) passed by respondent No.2. 2. Heard Sri. Keshav Bhat A., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. H.C. Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order at Annexures A and B are liable to be quashed as the finding recorded by both the authorities is non est and without considering the validity of the sale deed said to have been made in favour of late Akkayamma (Mother-in-law of the petitioner). He also invited attention of the Court to the suits referred to by the respondent No.1 at Annexure-A i.e., O.S.No.17/2014, O.S.No.591/2018 and O.S.No.161/2013 and submitted - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20437 WP No. 11387 of 2022 that the subject matter in the present writ petition are not the subject matter in the suit, and further the petitioner herein is not a party in the aforementioned suits and therefore, there is no impediment for the respondent authorities to consider the claim made by the petitioner in accordance with law. Accordingly, sought for interference. 4. The petitioner herein is a party in O.S.No.1326/2015, which is the partition suit filed by the petitioner claiming share in the suit schedule property. 5. Per contra, Sri. H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent, invited attention to the Court to the schedule appended to Annexure-J in O.S.No.1326/2015, wherein the land bearing No.14/4B measuring 0.21 Acres 8 guntas situated at Samethanahalli Village, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District and also land bearing Sy.No.14/4A measuring to an extent of 1 acre 31 guntas is Item No.4, O.S.No.17/2014 Annexure-G [and the same re-numbered as O.S.No.591/2018] before the Bangalore Rural Court, Bangalore, and in that view of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20437 WP No. 11387 of 2022 the matter unless the adjudication of the rights of the parties has to be made in those Suits, no interference is called for in this petition. 6. Sri Manjunath K., learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 3 argued in favour of the impugned orders and submitted that since the rights of the parties is yet to be crystallized in the suits mentioned above, no interference be called for in this petition. 7. In the light of the submission made by learned counsels appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the schedule mentioned in the aforementioned suits as well as in R.P.No.68/2019 at Annexure-A. The subject matter in the impugned order is land bearing No.14/4A, and 14/4B of Samethanahalli Village, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, is the subject matter in O.S.No.1326/2015 and O.S.No.591/2018, produced at Annexures referred to at G and J. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20437 WP No. 11387 of 2022 8. In that view of the matter, since the rights of the parties is not crystallized in the aforementioned suits, I am of the view, no interference is called for in this Petition and accordingly writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43