- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51131 WP No. 47289 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 47289 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: G MANJUNATH DEAD BY LRS 1. SMT. NANDINI W/O LATE G. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SRI. SHATAK GURUKAR S/O LATE G. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, 3. KUMARI SURAKSHA GURUKAR D/O LATE G. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, ALL ARE R/A NO.2236, 'GURUKAR HOSUE', OPP POLICE STATION 1ST CROSS, KUVEMPUNAGAR CHANNAPATNA, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 511. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. THILAK RAJ S.V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.N. BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHSILDAR KANAKAPURA TALUK KANAKAPURA RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 562 117. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51131 WP No. 47289 of 2017 2. SRI. K. YOGENDRA S/O K KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT ACHHALU VILLAGE, KAILANCHA HOBLI, K.P.DODDI POST, RAMANAGARA TALUK & DISTRICT - 571 511. 3. SMT. USHA JYOTHI W/O BABU BALACHANDAR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS SMT. CHANDANA NIROOP SINCE DEAD BY HER LR'S 4. KUM. ADISHA RASHMI HANDLI @ PARI D/O SRI. D. NIROOP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS 5. KUM. AMISHA RASHMI HANDLI @ KHUSHI D/O SRI. D. NIRROP KUMAR AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE R/AT K.H. ROAD, BANGALORE BALLYPET, SAKLESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 214. 6. SMT. RANJANNA SURESH W/O H.M. SURESH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESPONDENTS 3 AND 6 ARE RESIDING AT NO. 1806, 24TH MAIN 25THH 'B' CROSSS, 2ND SECTOR, H.S.R LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA K.S, AGA FOR R1; SRI. SRIHARI A.V, ADVOCATE FOR R2(ABSENT); SRI. A. MADHUSHUDHANA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R6) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51131 WP No. 47289 of 2017 THIS WP IS UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.20.7.2017 PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEX-L AND ALSO THE ENTRIES IN RELATED TO SY.NOS.24, 25, 27 AND 30 OF AALURU VILLAGE, SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT VIDE DTD.20.7.2017 OF THE R-1 VIDE ANNEX-M AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioners are seeking writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.07.2017 passed by the Tahsildar-respondent No.1 RRT (DS) 745/2017-18 at Annexure-L. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are the owner in possession of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.24, 25, 27 and 30 of Aaalur Village, Sathanur Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk, measuring 6.22 acres, 5.01 acres, 4.35 acres and 7.11 acres (for brevity, "subject lands") respectively. They acquired the same through a Gift Deed dated 26.04.2007 and ever since, the petitioners are in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51131 WP No. 47289 of 2017 possession and cultivation of the same and also all the revenue entries were mutated in their names. 3. Things stood thus, respondent No.2 herein had filed an application before respondent No.1 for change of katha in respect of subject lands. Respondent No.2 claimed before the Tahsildar that he had purchased the subject lands from one M.N.Jagadish vide Sale Deed dated 20.06.2011. The Tahsildar, without notifying the respondent in the said proceeding i.e., the father of the petitioners' - G.Manjunatha, has passed the impugned order. The challenge to the same is lis before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners' father i.e., late G.Manjunatha died in the year 2014 i.e. on 31.01.2014 and the order impugned was passed on 20.07.2017, as such, it is clear that the proceedings were held against a - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51131 WP No. 47289 of 2017 dead person and also the order has been passed against the dead person. Nevertheless, there is a civil proceedings pending before this Court in RFA No.254/2009 between the petitioners and respondent Nos.3 to 6 and other members of the family in respect of the title of the property. In such circumstances, the order passed by the Tahsildar i.e., respondent No.1 does not survive. Accordingly, he prays to allow the Writ Petition and to quash the order. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 to 6 also submits that in view of the pendency of the RFA before this Court, the Tahsildar ought not to have passed any order in respect to the mutations and accordingly he also supported the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. The learned AGA has not seriously disputed the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent Nos.3 to 6. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51131 WP No. 47289 of 2017 8. However, despite granting sufficient opportunity, respondent No.2, the respondent has not appeared before this Court. 9. I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also perused the records made available before this Court. 10. As could be gathered from records, more particularly the impugned order passed on 20.07.2017, the respondent therein i.e. G.Manjunath, father of the petitioners died on 31.01.2014 and that the said order has been passed against a dead person and it could be also seen that said G.Manjunath was also not alive during the course of the proceedings before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar only based on the Sale Deed produced by respondent No.2, has passed the order. However, it is the specific contention of the petitioners that they had acquired the subject lands by virtue of a Gift Deed dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:51131 WP No. 47289 of 2017 26.04.2007 i.e., much prior to the Sale Deed produced by respondent No.2. Moreover, RFA is pending before this Court in respect of the title of the subject lands, under such circumstances, I am of the considered view that, the Tahsildar has committed an error in passing the impugned order. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order at annexure-L dated 20.07.2017 passed by the Tahsildar- respondent No.1 is quashed. iii. It is made clear that the parties are at liberty to put forth their contention in respect of the title of the subject lands in First Appeal pending before this Court. iv. The revenue entries to be effected, would be subject to the result of Regular First Appeal. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE GPG/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8