- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21267 WP NO.1577 OF 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.1577 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI. A.S. ASHOK KUMAR S/O SRI A.R. SHIVARAM AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT KAIKONADARAHALLI VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA S. UPASANA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHASILDHAR OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 005. 2. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR ILLAVALA HOBLI. MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 189. 3. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT ILLAVALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSRURU DISTRICT - 571 189. 4. SMT. SAKAMMA W/O SRI. SIDDARAMEGOWDA D/O SRI. CHIKKEGOWDA Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21267 WP NO.1577 OF 2021 R/AT CHIKKEGOWDANA KOPPPALU VILLAGE, ILLAVALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 AND R3; SRI. P.B. AJITH, ADVOCTE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12TH DECEMBER, 2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-L; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CHANGE THE KHATHA AND OTHER REVENUE ENTRIES IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER WITH RESPECT TO SCHEDULE PROPERTY; 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 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 12th December, 2019 (Annexure-L) passed by the respondent No.1 in case No.R.R.T./Dispute/410/2015-16; inter alia sought for direction to the respondents to change the Khata and other revenue entries in respect of the schedule property in favour of the petitioner. 2. Heard Sri. Subramanya S. Upasana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21267 WP NO.1577 OF 2021 3; and Sri. P.B. Ajith, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. 3. Sri. Subramanaya S. Upasana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had purchased the schedule property in terms of the registered Sale Deed dated 04th September, 2006 (Annexure-A) and therefore, the respondent No.1 is required to incorporate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the schedule property. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. 4. Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner is having an efficacious remedy under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to challenge the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 5. Sri. P.B. Ajith, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 submitted that the respondent No.4 had filed Original Suit No.424 of 2018 before the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC., Mysuru against the petitioner and others, seeking relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the schedule property and also took up the plea that the registered Sale - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21267 WP NO.1577 OF 2021 Deed dated 04th September, 2006 is not binding on the respondent No.4 herein. 6. In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ petition, the same would indicate that the petitioner is claiming right over the schedule property on the basis of the registered Sale Deed dated 04th September, 2006 (Annexure-A). In this regard, on careful examination of the order sheet of the impugned proceedings produced at Annexure-L would indicate that, there is a registered Gift Deed in respect of the schedule property and accordingly, the respondent No.1 passed an order of status quo ante. 7. Be that as it may, if the petitioner herein is adversely affected by the impugned order dated 12th December, 2019 (Annexure-L) passed by the respondent No.1 in case No.R.R.T./Dispute/410/2015-16, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is also to be noted that, in view of the fact that the suit is pending consideration before the competent Civil Court in respect of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21267 WP NO.1577 OF 2021 schedule property, it is open for the competent authority to take decision in the matter in the appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, if the petitioner approaches the competent authority within an outer limit of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 8. It is also made clear that, the time spent by the petitioner herein from the date of filing of the present petition till the date of receipt of copy of this order be condoned by the competent appellate authority, if the petitioner files such appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order. With this observation, writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60