Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 73681 (KAR)

M SRIRAMA SUBRAHMANYAM v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/15664/2025 · 2025-07-21

E S Indiresh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27339 WP No. 15664 of 2025 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.15664 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M. SRIRAMA SUBRAHMANYAM AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, SON OF LATE M.V.SUBRAHMANYAM, 2. M. GOPAL SUBRAHMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS SON OF LATE M.V.SUBRAHMANYAM BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.NQ 401, SHRIRAM SURABHI, HOLIDAY VILLAGE ROAD, MALLSANDRA, BENGALURU. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C N SATYANARAYANA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27339 WP No. 15664 of 2025 3. TAHASILDAR, MULABAGILU TALUK, MULABAGILU - 563102. 4. SURVEYOR, AVANI HOBLI, MULABAGILU TALUK - 563131. 5. 6. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR AVANI HOBLI MULABAGILU TALUK SMT. RANGGANAYAKAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY L.R.S M.R. NAGABHUSHAN , AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, SON OF M.N. RANGANATHALAH AND LATE RANGANAYAKAMMA, 7. SMT. POORNIMA, AGED :MAJOR, WIFE OF LATE M.R. PRASANNA, RESPONDNETS NO.6 AND 7 ARE RESIDING AT AVANAI VILLAGE, AVANI HOBLI, (OPP. TO NADA KACHERI), MULABAGILU TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563127. 8. SMT. A.R. MANGALA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF M.N. RANGANATHAIAH AND LATE RANGANAYAKAMMA, WIFE OF N.P. RAMESH RESIDING AT NO.5, 1ST MAIN, NTI LAYOUT, RMV EXTENSION, BENGALURU - 560 094. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27339 WP No. 15664 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RA NO.220/2020 DATED 17.02.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE- 'A' RESULTING IN MR NO.T36/2024-2025 DATED 12.03.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3.; DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO RESTORE ENTRIES IN RTC OF SY. NO. 26 AS PER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE RRT/CR/120/2019-20 DATED 11.06.2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER I have heard Sri. C.N. Satyanarayana Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Navya Shekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 17.02.2025 in RA No. 220 of 2020 on the file of the Special Assistant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27339 WP No. 15664 of 2025 Commissioner-I, quashing the order dated 11.06.2020 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.3- Thasildar. 3. C.N. Satyanarayana Shastry, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, entry in the mutation as per Annexure-B has been made taking into consideration the possession and title in respect of subject matter and same has been illegally interfered with by the Special Assistant Commissioner- I, Kolar- Sub Division, Kolar and accordingly, sought for interference in this writ petition. 3. Per contra, Smt. Navya Shekar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent-State submitted that, petitioners are having alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27339 WP No. 15664 of 2025 4. In that view of the matter, though the learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the title to the property in question is settled as well as with regard to possession also, however, taking into consideration that, suit in OS No.151 of 2019 is pending consideration before the competent Civil court at Mulabagilu, and the petitioners have to exhaust efficacious remedy available under Section 136(3) of the Act, I do not find merit in the writ petition. Reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority as stated above, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32