- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19054 WP No. 14633 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 14633 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. S.B. DILIP, S/O LATE H.S. BHAKTHAVATSALA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O NO.24/15, SRI SAI NILAYA, 1ST FLOOR, OBALAPPA STREET, MAVALLI, BENGALURU - 560 004. 2. MR. S.B. PRADEEP, S/O LATE H.S. BHAKTHAVATSALA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/O NO.453, 1ST FLOOR 11TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 080. 3. MRS. MEERA N. BUSHANA, W/O K.A. NAGABUSHANA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS C/O NO.453, 1ST FLOOR, 11TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 080, REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER MR. S.B. PRADEEP. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. BALAJI RAGHUNATHAN, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19054 WP No. 14633 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 001. 3. THE SPECIAL ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MYSURU SUB DIVISION, MYSURU - 570 001. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, MYSURU, MYSURU - 570 001. 5. MR. S.B. MURALI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O LATE H.S. BHAKTHAVATSALA, NO.453, GROUND FLOOR, 11TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 080. 6. MRS. SABITHA AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS, W/O LATE H.S. BHAKTHAVATSALA, NO.453, GROUND FLOOR, 11TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 080. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARATH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1; NOTICE NOT ORDERED IN RESPECT OF R2 TO R6) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19054 WP No. 14633 of 2025 THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD. 29.04.2025 PASSED BY R-2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN RP/130/2024 AT ANNX-A AND THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2024 PASSED BY R-3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN R.A.342/2022 AT ANNX-B AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-4 AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 29.04.2025 passed by respondent No.2 in RP.No.130/2024 (Annexure-A) and the order dated 20.06.2024 passed by respondent No.3 in RA.No.342/2022 (Annexure-B) inter-alia sought for a direction to respondent No.3 to revert back the revenue entries as stood prior to the execution of the gift deed dated 24.06.2021. 2. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners and learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondents, wherein, the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19054 WP No. 14633 of 2025 change of entry has been made by respondent No.3 pursuant to the registered gift deed dated 24.06.2021 and same was challenged before respondent Nos.2 and 3. As per the impugned order at Annexures-A and B, respondent Nos.2 and 3 have arrived at a conclusion that as there is suit in O.S.No.853/2024, which is pending consideration before the VII Additional Senior Civil Judge and J.M.F.C Mysuru and therefore, respondent No.1 has rejected the order dated 02.04.2025 in RA.No.342/2022. 3. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners that respondent No.3 be directed to enter the names of the petitioners during pendency of the suit in the RTC extracts. 4. The submission made by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners to enter the names of the petitioners in which proceedings before the Civil Court is pending, in the RTC extracts cannot be considered at this stage as the suit is filed during 2025 and the registered gift deed has been made prior to the same. Therefore, the said contention cannot be accepted. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19054 WP No. 14633 of 2025 5. In that view of the matter, since the suit is pending consideration before the Competent Civil Court wherein, the adjudication has to be made with regard to the title of the parties and also the registered gift deed dated 24.06.2021 is also challenged by the parties in the said suit, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in this writ petition as the parties have to await the judgment and decree that may be made in O.S.No.853/2024. 6. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merits in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47 CT: BHK