- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50031 WP No. 15215 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 15215 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SADASHIVAIAH S/O LATE CHIKKAMARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 2. VEERABHADRAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAMARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, BOTH PETITIONERS ARE R/A MANCHAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE, TAVAREKERE POST, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK-562 114, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. DIVYA KRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BANGALORE-560 001. REPRSENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, BANGALORE-560 009. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50031 WP No. 15215 of 2019 DODDABALLAPURA TOWN-561 203, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 4. TAHSILDAR HOSKOTE TALUK, HOSKOTE-562 114. 5. MUNIYAMMA W/O MUNIYAPPA @ BUDAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/A BANARAHALLI VILLAGE, DEVANAGONDHI POST, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1-R4, SRI. M. NARAYANA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED IN REVISION PETITION NO.2/2016-17 DATED 02.02.2019 BY THE R-2, VIDE ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50031 WP No. 15215 of 2019 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition, the petitioners sought for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-'H' and respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-'G'. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are the absolute owners in possession of land bearing Sy.No.118 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas situated at Manchappanahalli Village, Nandagudi Hobli, Hoskote Taluk, Bangalore Rural District (for brevity "subject land"). The petitioners' grandfather one Veerabhadraiah purchased the said land from one Rama vide absolute Sale Deed dated 18.03.1944. Thereafter, the revenue entries were mutated in his name and he was put in possession and enjoyment of the same. After the death of Veerabhadraiah, the petitioners being his legal representatives, continued in possession of the subject land. However, in the year 2011-12, respondent No.5 being the daughter of Rama, filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner to change the revenue entries and mutation. The Assistant Commissioner considered her request and directed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50031 WP No. 15215 of 2019 respondent No.4 - Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry and thereafter to consider the claim of respondent No.5. The said order was challenged by the petitioners before respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner by filing R.P.No.02/2016-17. However, the Deputy Commissioner rejected the revision petition as per Annexure-'H'. Challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 3. I have heard the learned counsel Smt.Divya Krishna appearing for the petitioners, learned HCGP Sri Neelakantappa K Pujar appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri M. Narayana Reddy, appearing for respondent No.5. 4. It is the primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order primarily on the ground that the petitioners failed to place the relevant materials including the Sale Deed. However, the petitioners were not provided sufficient opportunity before the Assistant Commissioner to place the said documents. Later, the Deputy Commissioner also, without considering the said aspect rejected the appeal. In such circumstance, she submits that the order of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner may affirmed by - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50031 WP No. 15215 of 2019 extending sufficient opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their claim by placing relevant documents. Accordingly, she prays to allow the writ petition. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the petitioners were appeared before the Assistant Commissioner, despite granting sufficient opportunity, they failed to place the relevant documents. In such circumstance, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rightly passed the impugned orders directing the parties to appear before the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective parties so also perused the documents made available for me including the impugned order. 7. As could be gathered from records, it is not in dispute that the grandfather of the petitioners one Veerabhadraiah purchased the land bearing Sy.No.118 measuring 1 acre 39 guntas on 18.03.1944 as per Annexure-A. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50031 WP No. 15215 of 2019 On perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the same depicts that, though the petitioners appeared before the Assistant Commissioner, they failed to produce the Sale Deed or any such relevant documents to put forth their claim. As such, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and directed the Tahsildar to conduct an enquiry. The Deputy Commissioner also observed that the Sale Deed placed by the petitioners do not disclose the survey number of the subject property since the documents are not legible. Presently, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are having certified copy of the original Sale Deed and if an opportunity extended to them, they will place the same before the Tahsildar. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the matter requires re-consideration at the hands of the Tahsildar by extending opportunity to both the parties to put forth their claim by placing relevant documents. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off by affirming the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner dated 02.02.2019 at Annexure-'H' and - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50031 WP No. 15215 of 2019 respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner dated 05.05.2015 at Annexure-'G'. 9. Respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, Hoskote Taluk, Hoskote is directed to implement the order of the Assistant Commissioner by extending sufficient opportunity to both the parties to put forth their claim in accordance with law at the earliest. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30