- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21805 WP No. 18696 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.18696 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS 2. 2(a). GOPALA KRISHNA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SUMANGALA W/O LATE GOPLA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 2(b). NAGARAJU S/O LATE GOPALAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 3. KESHAVA S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 4. GANGARAJU S/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5. SMT. GAYATHRI D/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 6. SMT. SHOWBHAGYA D/O NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21805 WP No. 18696 of 2022 PETITIONERS ARE R/AT NO. 316, 16th CROSS, WAIVERS COLONY, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PIN - 562 161. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. NARASAIAH S/O KARIBUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS. 2. S.N. NARAYANA S/O S. NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS BOTH ARE R/AT NO.1 AND 2 ARE SONDEKOPPA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 162. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. THE THASILDAR BENGLAURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R3, R4 & R5; SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SIRI R., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21805 WP No. 18696 of 2022 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2022 PASSED IN R.P.NO.478/2015-16 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ANNEXURE-B UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 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 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 22.04.2022 in R.P.No.478/2015-16(Annexure-B), passed by respondent No.3. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, respondent No.3 has not properly verified the documents, particularly the mortgage deed said to have been executed by Chikkarevanna, who is claimed to be the ancestor of the petitioners herein. It is further contended that, though respondent No.4 has arrived at a conclusion in the appeal, that the private respondents therein have to establish their right in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21805 WP No. 18696 of 2022 respect of the subject land is concerned, however, the respondent No.3, without considering the finding recorded by respondent No.4, has interfered with the order passed by respondent No.4. 4. Per contra, Sri. D.R. Ravishakar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, invited the attention of the Court to the finding recorded by respondent No.3 and submitted that, the preliminary record in the revenue department would indicate that Subbachari, son of Shyamachari was the owner of the land in question and the said Subbachari has sold the land in favour of Kariyappa and name of Kariyappa continued in the revenue records. He also invited the attention of the Court to the suit in O.S.No.200/2014 which is pending consideration before the competent Court, wherein, the petitioners herein have to establish their right in respect of the land in question. 5. Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully considered the finding recorded by respondent Nos.3 and 4 as per Annexures - A and B. Perusal of the finding recorded by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21805 WP No. 18696 of 2022 respondent No.3 would indicate that in the Registrar of Lands / khetuwar extract, it is mentioned that originally the subject land belongs to Subbachari, son of Shyamachari, who sold the land in favour of Kariyappa and thereafter the name of Kariyappa was shown in the revenue records. In that view of the matter, since the petitioners herein have failed to establish the source of title in respect of the subject land is concerned and that apart, the private respondents herein have shown that property in question has been purchased as per registered Sale Deed by Kariyappa from the erstwhile owner Subbachari, son of Shyamachari and further, as the suit is pending consideration before the Trial Court in O.S.No.200/2014, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this writ petition. It is made clear that parties have to await the judgment that may be passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.200/2014 in which rights / title of the parties may be decided. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67