- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27701 WP No. 24881 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.24881 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI M. SHIVASWAMY S/O. LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 2. SRI M. NARAYANSWAMY S/O. LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 3. SRI BASAVARAJU M. S/O. LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 4. SRI M. HARIKRISHNA S/O. LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. 5. SRI M. MALLESH S/O. LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT VADDARAPALYA (31/8) KOTHNUR GRAMA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU-560 083. 6. SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O. LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT VADDARAPALYA (31/8), KOTHNUR GRAMA UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU 560 083. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27701 WP No. 24881 of 2023 7. SMT. VARALAKSHMI D/O. LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS CHANDANHOSAHALLI, DABASAPETE BENGALURU RURAL-562 111. 8. SMT. SARASWATHI D/O. LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS PILLAGANAHALLI VILLAGE GOTTIGERE BENGALURU-560 076. 9. SMT. BHUDEVAMMA D/O. LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS CHANDANHOSAHALLI, DABASAPETE BENGALURU RURAL-562 111. 10. SMT. AMBUJA D/O. LATE G. MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS VADDARAPALYA (31/8) KOTHNUR GRAMA UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU-560 083. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI ROHAN HOSMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT AMBEDKAR VEEDHI SAMPANGI RAMANAGARA BENGALURU-560 009. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION AMBEDKAR VEEDHI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27701 WP No. 24881 of 2023 SAMPANGI RAMANAGARA BENGALURU-560 009. 3. TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH AMBEDKAR VEEDHI SAMPANGI RAMANAGARA BENGALURU-560 009. 4. SRI RAGHAVENDRA M. S/O. LATE M. MURTHY AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.454/A 7TH CROSS, MADHAVAN PARK JAYANAGAR, 1ST BLOCK BENGALURU-560 011. 5. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O. LATE M. MURTHY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS. 6. SMT. INDIRA D/O. LATE M. MURTHY AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.5 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT 1ST CROSS NAVODAYANAGAR JP NAGAR 8TH PHASE BENGALURU-560 078. 7. 8. SRI ANAYAPPA K. S/O. PATEL KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.831, BEGUR BEGUR POST BENGALURU-560 068. SMT. VASUKI RAMASWAMY D/O. RAMASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.291 SRI VENKATADRI - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27701 WP No. 24881 of 2023 9. 10. 101, 9TH MAIN ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 055. SRI UDAY KUMAR REDDY B. S/O. SRI B.C. VENKAT REDDY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.655, 5TH MAIN NEAR B. CHANNASANDRA BUS STOP OMBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR BENGALURU-560 043. SMT. VIJAYA SATHYAVELU W/O. SRI SATHYAVELU RESIDING AT C/O. SRI SATHYAVELU NO.627, MEREKERI VILLAGE MEREKERI, KODAGU-571 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI SRIHARI A.V., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-4 TO R-6; SRI C.M. NAGABHUSHANA, ADVOCATE FOR R-7 TO R-10) * * * THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25-10-2023 PASSED BY R1, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN R.P.NO.119/2021 WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-Q. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27701 WP No. 24881 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking to quash the order dated 25.10.2023 passed by Respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru in R.P.No.119/2021 (Annexure-Q). 2. Heard Sri. Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Rohan Hosmath, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Siddharth Baburao, learned additional government advocate appearing for respondent nos.1 to 2, Sri. Srihari A.V., learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 4 to 6 and Sri. C.M.Nagabhushana, learned counsel for respondent nos.7 to 10. 3. Sri Vikram Huilgol, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners invited the attention of the Court to the order dated 06.08.2020 (Annexure-N) passed by respondent no.2 and contended that, the petitioners have not been heard in the matter by respondent no.2 and that apart, he pointed out certain irregularities committed by the revenue authorities. He also submitted that, respondent no.2 has reviewed his own order wherein, it has become functus officio and therefore, he - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27701 WP No. 24881 of 2023 contended that, the impugned order requires to be interfered in this writ petition. 4. Sri C.M.Nagabhushana, learned counsel appearing for respondents no.7 to 10 submitted that, the petitioners herein have filed O.S.No.9026/2024 before the Principal City Civil Court, Bengaluru, challenging the registered Sale Deed dated 02.11.2023 made in favour of the private respondents herein in respect of the very same subject land and therefore, it is submitted that no interference is called for. 5. Learned AGA sought to justify the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, though the Sri. Vikaram Huilgol., learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners pointed out about certain irregularities committed by the revenue authorities, particularly with regard to Annexure-N, however, since the petitioners have filed suit in O.S.No.9026/2024 challenging the sale deed dated 02.11.2023 made in favour of respondents no.7 to 10 and, further as the title of the parties have to be adjudicated before the Civil Court in the manner - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27701 WP No. 24881 of 2023 known to law, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this writ petition despite there being some irregularities which is alleged to have been committed by the revenue authorities. In that view of the matter, the parties have to await the judgment and decree that may be passed by the Civil Court in this regard. Hence, I am of the view, that no interference be called for in this writ petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 59