- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38624-DB WA No. 607 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 607 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI C. MARIGANGAIAH, S/O LATE CHIKKABASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT NO.32, BASAVESHWARA NILAYA, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, 3RD MAIN, 2ND A CROSS, SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE-560 091. …APPELLANT (BY MR. YASHWANTH NETHAJI.N.T, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K V NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI GANGABASAVAIAH, S/O LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 2. SRI REVANNA SIDDAIAH, S/O LATE BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT NESEPALYA, HAMLET OF UDUVEGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561 201. SRI MARIBASAVAIAH, S/O LATE NINGAIAH, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38624-DB WA No. 607 of 2025 3. SRI SHIVAMMA, W/O CHINNAGEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT MAADBAL HOBLI, MAADBAL, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561 201. 4. SRI M. BASAVARAJU, S/O. LATE MARIBASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, UDUVEGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561 201. 5. SMT. KEMPAMMA, W/O. GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT NASEPALYA, MAADBAL HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561 201. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DIVISION, RAMANAGARA-562 159. 7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA DIVISION, RAMANAGARA-562 159. 8. THE TAHSILDAR, MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI-562 120. …RESPONDENTS (BY MS. ARCHANA T.V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI T.N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1; SRI K.S HARISH, G.A FOR R-6 TO 8) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A. ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No. 20485/2014 DATED 10.03.2025 B. GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFs AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38624-DB WA No. 607 of 2025 PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, 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. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 10.03.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.20485/2014. 2. The appellant had filed the said petition challenging an order dated 30.11.2007 passed by respondent No.7 [the Assistant Commissioner, Ramanagara] as well as the order dated 24.10.2013 passed in the revision petition by respondent No.6 [the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara]. 3. The appellant sought to assail the change in the mutation entries that were effected in the land records on 24.06.2005. Admittedly, the appellant had not challenged the said mutation entries. However, respondent No.3 had filed an appeal before - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38624-DB WA No. 607 of 2025 respondent No.7, which came to be dismissed by an order dated 30.11.2007. He preferred a revision petition, which was dismissed on 24.10.2013. The appellant had filed an application for impleadment in the revision petition, which was rejected. 4. The learned Single Judge had declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had not challenged the initial mutation entries and the order dated 24.10.2013, which was passed in the revision petition that arose from the appeal proceedings initiated by respondent No. 3 which were rejected. 5. Respondent No.3 had not preferred any petition questioning the rejection of the revision petition. In the aforesaid circumstances, the learned Single Judge concurred with the decision of the Revisional Authority that the appellant had no rights in respect of the subject property, it would be open for him to approach the Civil Court to secure a declaratory decree. 6. We find no grounds to interfere with the said decision. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38624-DB WA No. 607 of 2025 7. It is needless to say that if the appellant prefers any remedy, he is at liberty to seek an exclusion of the period spent in pursuing the other proceedings. 8. Pending application is disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31