- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48680 WP No. 9048 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.9048 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGAVENI W/O LATE NARAYANACHARI, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT HASIGALA VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562129. 2. MADHUKUMAR S/O LATE NARAYANACHARI, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, R/AT HASIGALA VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562129. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48680 WP No. 9048 of 2022 2. THE ASSISTANT COMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561203. 3. SRI. CHANNACHARI S/O LATE MALIGACHARI, AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS, R/AT HASIGALA VILLAGE, SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RARAL DISTRICT - 562129. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. H.K. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.04.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT IN CASE NO. SCA SR NO.16/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48680 WP No. 9048 of 2022 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 11.04.2022 passed by Respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, produced at Annexure– A. 2. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this writ petition are that, Respondent No.3 claims to be the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 31, of Lakkondahalli, Hoskote Taluk, Bengaluru Rural Ditrict. Respondent No.3 executed a registered Gift Deed dated 16.04.2015 in favour of his daughter, Maligamma to an extent of 15 3/4, and pursuant to the said Gift Deed, the revenue records have been mutated in her name. It is further stated that Respondent No.3, along with his daughters, executed a registered Sale Deed dated 17.04.2015 in respect of a portion of land in Sy. No.31/1 in favour of Narayanachari (husband of Petitioner No.1 and father - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48680 WP No. 9048 of 2022 of Petitioner No.2), as per Annexure–E to the writ petition. 2. 3. In the meanwhile, Respondent No.3 approached Respondent No.2 under Section 23 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short, the 'Act). By impugned order dated 11.04.2022 (Annexure–A), Respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner nullified the registered Sale Deed dated 17.04.2015 (Annexure–E). Being aggrieved the same, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 4. I have heard Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State and Sri. H.K. Basavaraj, learned counsel for the respondent No.3. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48680 WP No. 9048 of 2022 5. Sri. Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that Respondent No.2 had no jurisdiction to nullify the registered Sale Deed dated 17.04.2015 (Annexure–E) executed by Respondent No.3 in favour of late Narayanachari, as the said sale was for valuable consideration. He therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 6. Per contra, Sri H.K. Basavaraj, learned counsel for Respondent No.3, sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure–A and contended that the Sale Deed was executed fraudulently, and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent- State sought to justify the impugned order passed by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48680 WP No. 9048 of 2022 8. Having considered the submissions of the parties, and upon careful examination of Section 23 of the Act, it is evident that the Sale Deed being nullified by Respondent No.2 (Annexure–E) was a sale for valuable consideration. In such circumstances, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners deserves acceptance. Respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to nullify a registered Sale Deed executed for valuable consideration. Therefore, the provisions of Section 23 of the Act are not applicable to the present case. 9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 11.04.2022 passed by Respondent No.2, produced at Annexure–A, is hereby set aside. Pending applications, if any, stand dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB:List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2