- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27133 WP No. 26126 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.26126 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI G V AMARENDRAKUMAR S/O LATE SRI G S VISHWANATHASETTY AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS RA/T DODDAPET TIPTUR TOWN TUMKURU - 572201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VASANTH VINCENT FERNANDES., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SUNILKUMAR S/O H S KUMARASWAMY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RA/T HINDISKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK TUMKURU - 572213. 2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O H S KUMARASWA,U AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT HINDISKERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI TIPTUR TALUK TUMKURU - 572213. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27133 WP No. 26126 of 2022 3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR KASABA HOBLI TITPUR TALUK TUMKUR 572201. 4. THE TAHSILDAR TIPTUR TALUK TUMKURU - 572201. 5. THE ASSITANT COMMISSIONER TIPTUR SUB DIVISON TUMKURU - 572201. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKURU DISTRICT TUMKURU - 572101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R3 TO R6; SRI. S. NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2022 IN REVISION PETITION NO.43/2015-16 ON THE FILE OF THE DEPUTY COMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT AT ANNEXURE D HERETO; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.10.2014 IN R.A. 164/2011-12 ON THE FILE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TIPTUR SUB-DIVISION, TUMKUR DISTRICT AT ANNEXURE- C HERETO; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.7.2010 IN M.R. 18/2009-10 ON THE FILE OF THE TAHSILDAR, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT AT ANNEXURE -B HERETO. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27133 WP No. 26126 of 2022 THIS 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 ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 22.04.2022 in R.P.No.43/2015-16(Annexure-D) on the file of respondent No.6, order dated 10.10.2014 in R.A.No.164/2011- 12(Annexure-C) on the file of respondent No.5, the order dated 14.07.2010 in M.R.No.18/2009-10(Annexure-B), made in pursuance of the order passed by the fourth respondent. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Sri. Vasanth Vincent Fernandes, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited the attention of the court to the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.72/2001(Annexure-A) and submitted that there is discrepancy in so far as the schedule in the decree and claim made in the petition. Learned counsel further submitted that the said finding has been upheld by the Revenue Authorities which is incorrect and accordingly, the petitioner is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27133 WP No. 26126 of 2022 assailing the impugned orders at Annexure-C and D in this writ petition. It is also argued that, Trial Court has not specifically divided the property in question. 4. Per contra, Sri. S. Nagaraja, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 6, invited the attention of the Court to the finding recorded by both the authorities and submitted that both the authorities have dismissed the plea made by the petitioner therein, based on the finding recorded by the Civil Court in O.S.No.72/2001 and accordingly, sought for dismissal of this writ petition. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the impugned orders at Annexure-C and D would indicate that the revenue authorities have directed the respondent No.4 to enter the name of the parties in the revenue records in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 20.01.2006(Annexure-A) in O.S.No.72/2001. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court, in the case of JAYAMMA AND OTHERS Vs. THE STATE OF - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27133 WP No. 26126 of 2022 KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BANGALORE AND OTHERS, reported in ILR 2020 KAR 1449, no interference is called for in this Writ Petition, as respondent - revenue authorities i.e. respondent Nos.5 and 6 have directed respondent No.4 to enter the name of the respondents herein, in terms of the Judgment and Decree dated 20.01.2006(Annexure-A) passed by the Civil Court in O.S.No.72/2001. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45