- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42921-DB WA No. 1906 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT APPEAL NO. 1906 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.SAGEER AHMED NOORULLA S/O ATHER MIAY AGED ABOUT 67 EYARS R/AT NO 550, L T BULDING NEAR HORAMAVU SIGNAL OUTER RING ROAD DODDABANASAWADI BENGALURU 560043 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. VIVEK SUBBA REDDY ALONG WITH SRI. ARPITH R REDDY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001 REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISISONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BEHIND KANDAYA BHAVANA KEMEPEGOWDA RAOD BENGALURU 560009 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH TLAUK Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42921-DB WA No. 1906 of 2024 KANADYA BHAVANA BENGALURU 560009 4. THE TAHSIDLAR BENGALURU NORTH ADDITIONAL TALUK YELAHANKA, BENGALURU 560064 5. SMT HASEENA BEGAM W/O LATE SYED AHMED AGED 60YEARS 6. SMT SHANAZ BEGAM D/O LATE SYED AHMED AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 7. MOHAMMED JAVED S/O LATE SYED AHMED AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS 8. SMT NASEEM BEGAM D/O LATE SYED AHMED AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 9. SRI. MOHAMMED AKRAM S/O LATE SYED AHMED AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 10. SMT. NAYEEMA BEGAM D/O LATE SYED AHMED AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R-5 TO R-10 ALL ARE R/AT 1691 2ND MAIN, KAMAKSHMAMA LAYOUT YELAHANKA, BENGALURU 560064. 11. SRI. SYED MAHABOOB S/O LATE SYED BASHA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 12. SMT SAMEENA BHANU - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42921-DB WA No. 1906 of 2024 W/O SRI SYED MAHABOOB AGED MAJOR R-11 AND R-12 ALL ARE R/AT BELLIHALLA VILLAGE YELAHANKA HOBALI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU 560064 13. SRI. HANUMANTHA RAO BASAVARAJA BASANOOR S/O BASAVARAJ AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT #S7, FORTUNE ICON APARTMENTS SAHAKARNAGAR BENGALURU 560092 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.R. AND RANGANATHA.R FOR C/R-7 (CP No.821/2025) & ALSO FOR R-5, R-6, R-8 TO R-10; SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFER SHAH AGA FOR R1-R4; B C AVINASH FOR R-13; M R MADHUSUDHANA FOR R-11 & R-12) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 31.08.2024 IN WP No. 17869/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42921-DB WA No. 1906 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present intra Court Appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.17869/2024 (KLR-RES). 2. Sri Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri Arpith R. Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has extensively made submissions on the writ appeal and Sri Mohammad Jaffer Shah, learned AGA for the respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri Prithveesh M.R. and Ranganatha R, learned counsels for caveator/respondent No.7 and also for respondent Nos.5, 6, 8 to 10, Sri B.C. Avinash, learned counsel for respondent No.13, Sri M.R. Madhusudhana, learned counsel for respondent Nos.11 and 12 have also advanced their submissions. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the rankings before the learned Single Judge. 4. The dispute is in respect of the ownership and revenue entries in respect of the land measuring 1 acre 19 1/2 guntas - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42921-DB WA No. 1906 of 2024 in Sy.No.43 situated at Bellahalli Village, Yelahanka Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District. 5. The petitioner has challenged the order 25.04.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No,.195/2014- 2015. Certain findings have been recorded by the learned Single Judge which could have been recorded only after leading the evidence by the parties. Therefore, we are of the view, that learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained the writ petition and recorded those findings, which could be only on the basis of the evidence led by the parties. 6. The learned Single Judge however, after recording these findings has relegated the parties to the Civil Court. 7. We are of the view, that once the parties have been relegated to the Civil Court, the recording of these findings were unnecessary. 8. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of this writ appeal reserving liberty to the appellant to take recourse to appropriate civil proceedings to establish his right, title and interest over the land in question and any finding recorded by - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42921-DB WA No. 1906 of 2024 the learned Single Judge or the Deputy Commissioner would not come in the way of appellant in establishing his right over the land in question by leading cogent and credible evidence. All contentions of the parties are left open. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE NG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8