- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19787 WP No. 24764 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 24764 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI SANJEEVAIAH, S/O ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEERTHAPURA KANDIGERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KEERTHI PRASAD D.C, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR - 572 102. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TIPTUR DIVISION, TUMKUR - 572 102. 4. THE TAHASILDAR CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214. Digitally signed by KAVYA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19787 WP No. 24764 of 2023 5. KEMPAIAH S/O LAKKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT THEERTHAPURA, KANDIKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. N. MAHALINGA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH ORDER DATED 27.10.2022 AT ANNEXURE-F BEARING NO. L.N.D.C.R.89/22-23 DATED 27.10.22 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 AND ETC., 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 Heard Shri.Keerthi Prasad.D.C., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also Shri.Manjunath.K., learned HCGP appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Shri.N.Mahalinga Bhat, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19787 WP No. 24764 of 2023 2. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 27.10.2022 (Annexure-F) passed by the first Respondent No.4. It is the case of the petitioner that the father of the petitioner-Siddappa was granted with the land bearing Sy.No.40/2 measuring 1 acre at Theerthapura Village, Kandikere Hobli, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk as per the Grant Certificate at Annexure-A. It is further stated in the writ petition that, one Kempaiah-Respondent No.5 has created a sale deed in violation of the Grant Rules and copy of the sale deed dated 14.09.1978 is produced at Annexure-B. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the petitioner is continued to be in possession of the schedule land mentioned in the petition. The Respondent No.5 has made an application to the revenue authorities seeking cancellation of the revenue entries standing in the name of the petitioner. Thereafter, it appears that Respondent No.4 has transferred into the name of the private respondents herein in the mutation entries and the same was challenged by the petitioner in R.A.No.43/2002-03 before - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19787 WP No. 24764 of 2023 Respondent No.3. The Respondent No.3 by order dated 05.01.2004 as per Annexure-D has rejected the order made by the Respondent No.4. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that the private respondents have preferred R.P.No.60/2008-09 before the Respondent No.2 herein and the Respondent No.2 herein, as per the order dated 20.01.2018 (Annexure-E) dismissed the revision petition. It is also forthcoming from the writ petition that the Respondent No.4 by letter at Annexure-F dated 27.10.2022, arrived at a conclusion that the grantee of the land in question (father of the petitioner) has alienated the subject land by violating the law and accordingly, rejected the Revision Petition. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is an absolute owner in possession of the subject land and the Respondent No.4 has issued the letter at Annexure-F without considering the fact that the father of the petitioner is a grantee of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19787 WP No. 24764 of 2023 land in question. Accordingly, he sought to allow this petition. 4. Per contra, the learned HCGP submitted that since the land in question has been sold by the original grantee in violation of law and accordingly, the petitioner is having a remedy elsewhere and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have carefully examined the reasons stated by Respondent No.4 at Annexure-F. Perusal of the same would indicate that the land in question has been granted in favour of one Siddappa bin Sanjeevaiah (father of the petitioner) and thereafter, the land in question was sold on 14.09.1978 in violation of the conditions imposed in the Grant Order dated 04.04.1974, which is contrary to the conditions imposed in the Grant Order. In that view of the matter, Respondent No.4 has issued the impugned letter at Annexure-F. In that view of the matter, since the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19787 WP No. 24764 of 2023 petitioner is being aggrieved by the letter at Annexure-F by Respondent No.4, petitioner is having an efficacious remedy under law to approach the competent authority questioning the impugned letter dated 27.10.2022 (Annexure-F). In that view of the matter, no interference is called for in this writ petition. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent authority, in accordance with law, if so adviced. In view of the above, Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55 CT: BHK