- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1902 WP No. 45382 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 45382 OF 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. AMASHAPPA S/O LATE PAPPAIAH AGED 73 YEARS 2. SRI. G. ANJINAPPA S/O GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS BOTH ARE R/O SAMATHA NAGARA NEAR RAILWAY STATION MALUR TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINOD .C.S, ADVOCATE; V/O/D 15.07.2022, WRIT PETITION AGAINST P1 IS ABATED) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101. 3. THE TAHSILDAR MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 130. 4. SMT. YAMUNA W/O RAJASHEKAR Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1902 WP No. 45382 of 2014 AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS NO.157, 12TH B CROSS MARUTHI LAYOUT, VIRUPAKSHIPURA BANGALORE-560 097. 5. SRI. B. SURESH BABU S/O VENKATARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS MUTTHASANDRA POST VIA VARTHUR, BANGALORE-560 087. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA .K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. N. SHARATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-L THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.05.2014, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE R-1 HEREIN, KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR IN R.A.NO.90/2007-08 AND TO QUASH ANNEXURE-K, THE ORDER DATED 20.11.2007, PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THE R-2 HEREIN, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR, IN CASE NO. R.A.NO.91/2006-07 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER In the captioned petition, the petitioners are before this Court assailing the order of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner insofar as 5 guntas of land in Sy.No.268/1 is concerned. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1902 WP No. 45382 of 2014 2. It is quite interesting to note that petitioners have rightly approached the competent Civil Court and have filed a comprehensive suit seeking relief of declaration of title over the very petition land and for consequential relief of injunction in O.S.No.61/2006 and O.S.No.271/2006. Petitioners have filed two suits in O.S.No.61/2006 and O.S.No.271/2006 seeking relief of declaration and injunction. 3. The core issue is as to whether the petitioners herein who are plaintiffs are able to substantiate that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property and that they are in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit. These two core issues in both the suits are answered against the petitioners herein. While answering these two issues in the negative, the Court in both the suits has held that petitioners herein have failed to substantiate their title over the suit schedule property and also possession and suits are ultimately dismissed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1902 WP No. 45382 of 2014 4. In light of the dismissal of the two suits, there is no scope for any further inquiry regarding the petitioners' right and title over 5 guntas of land in the context of mutation proceedings. The counsel representing the petitioners has earnestly and vehemently argued before this Court, attempting to persuade it to delve into the issue of the petitioners' rights over the 5 guntas of land, notwithstanding the adjudication made by the competent Civil Court. However, this Court, mindful of its jurisdictional limitations, is not inclined to entertain such arguments. It is pertinent to note that the present petition arises solely from mutation proceedings, and as such, this Court is strictly bound by the scope of inquiry prescribed under Sections 128 and 129 of the relevant statute. 5. Given that the comprehensive suits filed by the petitioners have been dismissed, the proper recourse for the petitioners would be to pursue their pending appeal, if any. Should the petitioners succeed in the appeal and are - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1902 WP No. 45382 of 2014 able to substantiate their claim of ownership over the 5 guntas of land, including demonstrating that despite the acquisition proceedings, they retain rightful ownership of the said land, the legal consequences will naturally follow in accordance with law. Until such a determination is made in the pending appeal or any other appropriate legal forum, this Court cannot venture beyond the confines of its jurisdiction within the mutation proceedings. Accordingly, the petitioners must seek redress for their grievances through the proper legal avenues available to them. 6. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of. However, it is made clear that petition against petitioner No.1 is dismissed as abated. Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45