- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1699 WP No. 22735 of 2024 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.22735 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI.SUNIL J S/O LATE JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS R/AT NO.630, TCH COLLEGE ROAD 3RD CROSS, KAVERI SCHOOL MARATHAHALLI BANGALORE - 560037 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHAN KUMAR M, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT BEHIND KANADAYA BHAVANA K G ROAD, BANGALORE 560009 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD BANGALORE - 560009 Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1699 WP No. 22735 of 2024 4. THE TAHASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE - 562106 5. SRI.GOVINDAPPA S/O LATE ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT KRISHNEGOWDA BUILDING CHENNASANDRA VILLAGE KADUGODI POST BANGALORE - 560067 6. SRI.H.K.JAYARAM S/O LATE KALAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.140 HEGGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE GUNJUR POST SARJAPURA HOBLI ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE - 560087 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTIION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 07-06-2024 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT AT BANGALORE DISTRICT IN R.P. NO.211/2022 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE I.E., RESPONDENT NO.3 IN R.A.(A) NO.02/2020-21 ON 02-06-2022 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-G AND ORDER DATED 28-04-2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 IN RRT(A)CR 659/2019-20 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1699 WP No. 22735 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the order dated 28.04.2020 passed by respondent No.4 – Tahasildar, who has ordered to mutate respondent No.5’s name pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.693/2014. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner made earnest efforts to convince this Court to grant an order of status-quo regarding the disputed property. However, after careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that such an indulgence cannot be granted at this stage. The decree obtained by respondent No.5 in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1699 WP No. 22735 of 2024 O.S.No.693/2014, which is a suit for specific performance, holds significant weight. This decree has served as the basis for the mutation of the property in favor of respondent No.5, as carried out by respondent No.4 – Tahsildar. Furthermore, the mutation has been reviewed and subsequently confirmed by respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner, and respondent No.2 – Deputy Commissioner. Given the adjudication by Civil court and the consequent administrative actions, this Court is not inclined to interfere by granting status-quo. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, however, brought to the attention of this Court a crucial fact: the decree passed in O.S.No.693/2014 is an ex-parte decree. It was further submitted that the petitioner’s vendor has already initiated steps to challenge the said decree by filing a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:1699 WP No. 22735 of 2024 seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree. In light of this, it is evident that the mutation carried out in favor of respondent No.5, which was based on the decree for specific performance, will inevitably be subject to the outcome of the pending Miscellaneous Petition. Therefore, while the ex-parte decree currently remains valid and binding, any action taken on its basis, including the mutation, would be contingent on the decision of the competent Court regarding the challenge to the ex-parte decree. With these above observations, the writ petition stands disposed off. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13