- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:14047 WP No. 29008 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 29008 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. FATHIMA, D/O P K ABDULLAH, AGED 64 YEARS, 2. P K MOHAMMAD S/O P K ABDULLAH AGED 62 YEARS, 3. KHAIRUNNISA D/O P K ABDULLAH AGED 55 YEARS. 4. P K HASAN S/O P K ABDULLAH AGED 53 YEARS. 5. KHATHEEJA D/O P K ABDULLAH AGED 48 YEARS. 6. SAINABBA D/O P K ABDULLAH AGED 40 YEARS. ALL RESIDENTS OF BESURU, AVINAHALLI VILLAGE, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:14047 WP No. 29008 of 2024 SAGARA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 412. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGARAJ S. JAIN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BANGALORE REGION, KR CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, SHIVAMOGGA - 577 201. 3. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, SAGARA TALUK, SAGARA - 577 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K. MANJUNATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ORDER BEARING NO. PRA.BHOO.JAM.NI.REVISION (SHI)/41/2022-23 DATED 14.06.2023 ON THE FILE OF THE R-1 AND UPON PERUSAL BE PLEASED TO AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER An application for Durasthi has been rejected by the 1st respondent solely on the ground that the Durasthi was conducted in the year 1984 and the land was granted by - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:14047 WP No. 29008 of 2024 the 1st respondent to the father of the revision petitioners and after he had died, the Khata was also changed in favour of his legal representatives and the petitioners were seeking for Durasthi in the year 2021, i.e., after a period of 40 years, for which, there is no justification. 2. In my view, this reasoning of the 1st respondent cannot be found fault with. If the Durasthi conducted in 1989 was accepted by the predecessor in title of the petitioners, the petitioners cannot contend that the Durasthi conducted in 1989 was improper or incorrect. 3. Therefore, there is no merit in the revision. Petition is therefore, dismissed. SD/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE BNV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 CT: BHK