- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38193 WP No. 27679 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 27679 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT ANKAMMA W/O MAHADEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT 2ND CROSS, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, KANAKAPURA- BENGALURU MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 070. 2. SMT TAYIMUDDAMMA D/O LATE NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS. OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE R/AT KAGGALAHALLI VILLAGE HAROHALLI HOBLI, HAROHALLI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 112. 3. SRI T. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O LATE THIMMAPPA @ ANNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.7142, 14TH FLOOR, BSK 6TH STAGE, TALGHATTAPURA, EBONY BLOCK, SOBHA FOREST VIEW, 100 FEET VAJARAHALLI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 109. OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE 4. SMT. SOUMYA V, D/O VENKATARAMANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO. 13, PARIJATHA NILAYA, 1ST 'A' CROSS, 6TH MAIN, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38193 WP No. 27679 of 2025 AISHWARYALAYOUT, KUVEMPU NAGAR, KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 062. OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. GEETHA.A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT MS BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR BEEDHI BENGALURU 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA-562159 BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB DIVISION, RAMANAGARA-562159 BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILAHAR, KANAKAPURA TALUK KANAKAPURA 562 117 BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT. 5. THE TAHSILDAR, HAROHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT-562112 6. SRI T NANJEGOWDA, S/O LATE THIPPAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS AFTIKUPPE VILLAGE AND POST MARALUWADI HOBLI HAROHALLI TALUK BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT.-562121 7. SRI SIDDEGOWDA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38193 WP No. 27679 of 2025 S/O LATE VEERABHADRE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS R/AT ATTIKUPPE VILLAGE AND POST MARALUWADI HOBLI HAROHALLI TALUK BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT-562121 8. SRI MUNIRAJU S/O EREGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT ATTIKUPPE VILLAGE POST MARALAWADI HOBLI HAROHALLI TALUK-562 121 BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT. 9. SRI ERE GOWDA S/O LATE NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE 10. SRI SHIVANANJAPPA S/O LATE NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE 11. SMT TAYAMMA D/O LATE NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE 12. SMT SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE 13. SMT SARASWATHAMMA D/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE 14. SRI SURESH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38193 WP No. 27679 of 2025 S/O LATE RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE 15. SMT JYOTHI D/O LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT MAJOR OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE 16. SRI HARISH S/O LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT MAJOR OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE 17. SRI NANJUNDAPPA S/O LATE NANJAMMA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS OCCUPATION AGRICULTURE RESPONDENT NO.9 TO 17 R/AT KAGGALAHALLI VILLAGE, HAROHALLI HOBLI, HAROHALLI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562112 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OF ORDER OF DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.08.2025 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KAMATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN REVISION PETITION NO. 106/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.05.2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.RP/31/2024 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B WITH RESPECT TO LAND BEARING SY.NO. 12 MEASURING 5 ACRES 18 GUNTAS, AND LAND BEARING SY.NO. 19 MEASURING 2 ACRE 31 GUNTAS SITUATED AF ATTIKUPPE VILLAGE, MARALAVADI HOBLI, HAROHALLI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38193 WP No. 27679 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for the respondents No.1 to 5. Notice to other respondents is not necessary for the following: 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the 6th respondent herein filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.11/2019 challenging two orders ie., order dated 20.04.2016 cancelling the forfeiture clause 'PADA'. The other order is, mutation order vide MR No.H26/2018-19. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal by order dated 23.09.2022. 3. It is pointed out that the 6th respondent's brother T.Honnappa also filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. However, what was challenged by T.Honappa is only mutation order in favour of the petitioner in MR No.H18/2022-23 and subsequent MR No.T-19/2023-24 whereby the name of the purchaser at the hands of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38193 WP No. 27679 of 2025 petitioner was entered. The appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner on 20.12.2024. 4. Learned counsel submitted that the revision petition filed by T.Honnappa at Annexure-T was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 02.05.2025. However, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision petition vide impugned order at Annexure-B. 5. Learned counsel further submits that the same set of facts as found in the case of T.Honnappa are also recorded by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order. However, the revision petition has been allowed while setting aside the mutation entry not only in favour of the petitioner but also in favour of the subsequent purchasers while also canceling the order of cancellation of PADA dated 20.04.2016. 6. Learned counsel submits that a plain reading of the impugned order shows that the Deputy Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction by going into disputed questions of title and canceling an order which was passed in the year 2016 cancelling the PADA which was also the prayer made by the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38193 WP No. 27679 of 2025 respondent No.6 herein in earlier seeking cancellation of PADA. The issue herein, only regarding the mutation entries made in favour of the petitioner and subsequent purchaser which could not have been cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner. 7. The petitioners have approached the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in revision petition R.P.No.106/2025 and filed I.A.No.2 seeking stay of the impugned order. However, the Tribunal has rejected the application. 8. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that the Tribunal may be directed to consider and disposed of the revision petition within the time frame. 9. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of while setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-A passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, while directing stay of the impugned order at Annexure-B dated 18.05.2018 and all further proceedings thereto, till the matter is considered and disposed of by the Tribunal. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38193 WP No. 27679 of 2025 10. Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is directed to consider and dispose of the revision petition in R.P.No.106/2025 as expeditiously as possible at any rate not later than 6 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9