- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20144 WP No. 9080 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 9080 OF 2010 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. 1(a) 1(b) 1(c) SRI V SADASHIVA DIXIT, S/O LATE VIRUPAKSHA DIXIT, DIED, REP. BY HIS LRs SMT. SEETHALAKSHMI, W/O LATE V. SADASHIV DIKSHITH, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, SRI RAMESH, S/O LATE V. SADASHIV DIKSHITH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SRI S. NAGENDRA DIKSHITH, S/O LATE V. SADASHIV DIKSHITH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A NO.732, DESHADA PETE ROAD, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI N.S.BHAT, ADV. FOR SRI SAMPANGIRAMAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE-560 009. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI. Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20144 WP No. 9080 of 2010 4. 4(a) N. NARAYANASWAMY, S/O NANJAPPA, MAJOR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O N. NARAYANASWAMY, MAJOR, R/AT THINDLU VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS [BY SRI MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; R4(a) - SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED] THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-L IN REVISION PETITION NO. 167/2006-07 DATED 07.11.2009; THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-K IN APPEAL NO. RA(D) 36/2005-06 DATED 17.02.2008 AND ALSO THE IMPUGNED MUTATION ENTRY NO. 11/2002-03 DATED 02.11.2002 AT ANNEXURE-G AS ILLEGAL BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRLIMINARY HEARING ON B- GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 07.11.2009 passed in RP.No.167/2006-07 (Annexure-L) by the respondent No.1 and the order dated 17.02.2007 passed in Appeal RA.No.(D) 36/2005-06 (Annexure-K) by the respondent No.2 inter-alia sought for change of mutation entry in the name of petitioner by challenging the mutation entry No.11/2002-03 dated 02.11.2002 (Annexure-G). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20144 WP No. 9080 of 2010 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents - State. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that the land bearing Sy.No.8 of Thindlu Village, Kundhana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, measuring to an extent of 4 Acres was granted in favour of the original petitioner – V Sadashiva Dixit as per Grant Order dated 28.09.1960 (Annexure-A) and Saguvalli Chit has been produced in this regard. It is also stated that, the respondents authorities have phoded the land in question and assigned new survey number as Sy.No.184 as per Annexure-B. The petitioner had produced the revenue records including the RTC extracts to establish that the petitioner is in possession of the land in question. 4. In the meanwhile, respondent No.4 has made an application to the respondent No.3 stating that, the respondent No.4 is having title in respect of the subject land and in that view of the matter, the mutation entries stands in the name of the petitioner was changed as per the Mutation Register No.11/2002-03 dated 02.11.2002 (Annexure-G). Feeling - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20144 WP No. 9080 of 2010 aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the respondent No.2 in Appeal RA.No.(D) 36/2005-06 and the said appeal came to be dismissed on 17.02.2007 and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached the respondent No.1 in RP.No.167/2006-07. The respondent No.1 by order dated 07.11.2009, dismissed the revision petition and being aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed. 5. Sri. N.S. Bhat, Advocate for Sri. N.S. Sampangiramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the land in question has been granted by the respondents authorities as per Annexure-A and the mutation was stand in the name of the petitiponer for more than 40 years, however, the same has been interfered with by the respondent No.3 as per M.R.No.11/2002-03 which requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. 6. Per-contra, Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents – State sought to justify the impugned orders at Annexures-G, L and K. 7. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioner is claiming - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20144 WP No. 9080 of 2010 right in respect of the subject land as per the Grant Order dated 28.09.1960 at Annexure-A. It is also forthcoming from Annexure-C that the respondent No.3 has phoded and assigned new survey number as Sy.No.184 and in that view of the matter, since the land in question has been granted by the Government itself to the petitioner as per the Grant Order dated 28.09.1960 and without considering the same, the said entries has been disturbed by the respondent No.3 in M.R.No.11/2002-03 at Annexure-G which requires to be set- aside. 8. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration that the land in question has been granted in favour of the petitioner as per Annexure-A and thereafter, the land in question has been phoded in favour of the petitioner by assigning new survey number as Sy.No.184 by the respondent No.3 and in that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the impugned orders are liable to be set-aside. 9. However, taking into consideration the factual aspects on record is concerned in the event, if the respondent - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20144 WP No. 9080 of 2010 No.4 claiming any right in respect of the subject land, it is open for the respondent No.4 to approach competent Civil Court for adjudication of his title in respect of the land. In the result, I pass the following: O R D E R i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The mutation entry bearing M.R.No.11/2002- 03 dated 02.11.2002 at Annexure-G issued by the respondent No.3; the order dated 17.02.2007 in Appeal RA.No.(D) 36/2005-06 at Annexure-K passed by the respondent No.2 and the order dated 07.11.2009 in RP.No.167/2006-07 at Annexure-L passed by the respondent No.1 are hereby quashed. iii) The respondent No.3 is directed to restore the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner as stood before passing the impugned mutation entry in M.R.No.11/2002-03 dated 02.11.2002 (Annexure-G) Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46