- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2568 WP No. 29504 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 29504 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SMT. ANJINAMMA, D/O SRI KAPPA URF KAPPANNA, W/O SRI VENKATASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/O BYADARAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VEERAYYA HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALURU-560 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, DODDABALLAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203. 4. THE TAHASILDHAR, MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2568 WP No. 29504 of 2024 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MANJUNATHA K, HCGP) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION DATED 28.08.2024, 02.09.2024 AND 21.08.2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-C TO C2 RESPECTIVELY. 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 seeking mandamus against respondent nos.2 to 4 to consider the representation dated 28.08.2024, 02.09.2024 and 21.08.2024 as per Annexure-C, C1 and C2 to mutate petitioner's name to the petitioner's land on the premise that this land was re-granted to the petitioner's ancestors way back in 1956. 2. Learned counsel for the Government Pleader (HCGP) has submitted that the petitioner's claim over the disputed land is not substantiated by any re-grant order issued by the competent authority. It is contended that the absence of such an order raises serious questions regarding the legitimacy of - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2568 WP No. 29504 of 2024 the petitioner's claim. Since the State has explicitly disputed the petitioner’s right over the land in question, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner cannot establish her claim in these proceedings. Instead, the appropriate course of action would be for the petitioner to be relegated to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, where she may effectively substantiate her rights and seek appropriate relief. 3. The petitioner has asserted that the disputed land is Inam land and that a re-grant order exists, which confers title upon the petitioner’s ancestor. However, the petitioner has not been able to produce any such re-grant order before the authorities to validate her claim. In light of this, it is incumbent upon the petitioner to establish the existence and validity of the re-grant order either before the concerned authorities or by initiating appropriate proceedings before the Civil Court. If the petitioner believes that her ancestor acquired valid title to the land pursuant to the re-grant, she may seek a declaratory decree from the Civil Court confirming the title. Until such a declaration is obtained, the petitioner's claim over the land remains unsupported and cannot be entertained in the present proceedings. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2568 WP No. 29504 of 2024 4. Reserving such liberty, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7