- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45232 WP No. 38270 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 38270 OF 2013 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: CHINNAPAPAMMA SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED: 8.8.2022 ON I.A.1/2020) a) S. MANJUNATH S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY LRS. a(i) AND a(ii) a(i) SMT. BHANUMATH W/O LATE MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS a(ii) SRI. M.RAGHU S/O LATE S. MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS a(i) AND a(ii) RESIDING AT NO.66, 13TH CROSS, LN PURA BANDIREDDY CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 021 (AMENDED AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 08.08.2022 ON I.A.1/2021) b) GOPAL S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS K42, 2ND MAIN 12TH CROSS L.N.PURA, BANDIREDDY CIRCLE BENGALURU – 560 021. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45232 WP No. 38270 of 2013 c) NAGARAJA S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS d) SURESH S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS SINCE DEAD BY LRS. d(i) AND d(ii) d(i) SMT. LATHA S. W/O LATE SURESH AGED 34 YEARS d(ii) SUHAS BABU S. S/O LATE SURESH AGED 29 YEARS BOTH R/AT NO.K42 2ND MAIN, 12TH CROSS, L.N.PURA BANDIREDDY CIRCLE BENGALURU (AMENDED ON 09.11.2022) e) SRINIVAS S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA NAIDU AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS (f) SMT. GEETHA W/O LATE SHEKAR AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS (g) SRINIDHI S/O LATE SHEKAR AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS (h) KUMARI SHIREESHA S/O LATE SHEKAR AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45232 WP No. 38270 of 2013 PETITIONER NOS.(c), (e) TO (h) ARE R/AT CHIKKANAHALLI TAVAREKERE HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR THE LRS.OF PETITIONER (D)) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIEF SECRETARY REVENUE SECRETARIATE VIDHANA SOUDHA DR AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 2. THE TAHASILDAR KANDAYA BHAVANA KEMPEGOWDA ROAD BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT 3. SMT. HANUMAKKA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS W/O VENKATARAMANAIAH 4. VENKATACHALAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS. a) HANUMANTHARAJU V. S/O LATE VENKATACHALAIAH AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT CHIKKANAHALLI VILLAGE TAVAREKERE HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 5. THIMMAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45232 WP No. 38270 of 2013 a) MUNIYAMMA W/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOIUT 62 YEARS b) SHARADA D/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS c) PRAKASH S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS d) GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS e) VENKATESHA @ SRINIVAS LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS 6. BHEEMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O CHIKKA VENKATAIAH 7. HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O CHIKKA VENKATAIAH 8. B.K.CHANDRASHEKAR MANAGING DIRECTOR M/S DHARMAPREATH DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS PRIVATE LTD. NO.52/2, 6TH CROSS SIDDAGANGA CHOULTRY ROAD MANJUNATH NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 010 9. K.ASHWATH PRESIDENT, USHA KIRAN HOUSING CO-OP SOCIETY LTD. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45232 WP No. 38270 of 2013 OFFICE AT K.T.S.V.SANGHA BUILDING, 5TH BLOCK RAJAJINAGARA BENGALURU – 560 010 (V.C.O. DATED 26.03.2018) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA K. PUJAR, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. V.B. SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R6, R7 AND ALSO FOR IMPLEADING R8 & R9; R4(a) SERVED UNREPRESENTED; VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 5.12.2016 NOTICE TO R5(a), R5(b), R5(c), R5(d), R5(e) ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO- QUASH THE ANNEXURE-K DATED 10.05.2013 IN RRT (TH) CR.456/2012-2013 MAY BE QUASHED BY WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTIONS. THE PETITIONER FURTHER PRAYS THAT WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION DATED 26-11-2012 AT ANNEXURE-J. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45232 WP No. 38270 of 2013 ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have sought for a writ of certiorari and to quash the order dated 10.05.2013 passed in R.R.T (TH) C.R 459/2012-2013 as per Annexure - K and also sought for writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 26.11.2012 at Annexure - J. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that, petitioner - Smt.Chinna Papamma had purchased the land bearing Sy.no.23 measuring 5 acres and Sy.no.8 measuring 24 guntas situated at Chikkanahalli, Taverekere Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk vide sale deed dated 01.05.1968. Ever since from the date of purchase, she was in possession of the said land. Subsequently, respondent No.2 – Tahsildar, Magadi Taluk made an attempt to dispossess the petitioner on the basis of Karnataka Ordinance No. 31 of 1975, the Karnataka Village Officers Abolition Act (Amendment) dated 24.12.1975. Against which, the petitioner filed a writ petition in WP No.6588/1976 before this Court and this Court rejected - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45232 WP No. 38270 of 2013 the petition of the petitioner vide order dated 18.10.1976. Subsequently, the land was re-granted in favour of vendor of the petitioner dated 28.07.2007. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that, even thereafter the petitioner is in possession of the subject land. As such, she approached the Tahsildar by filing a representation as per Annexure – J to grant the land in her favour since she was in possession of the subject land. The said application was not considered by the Tahsildar. Hence, she filed this writ petition. 4. Heard Sri.N.Nagaraja, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.Neelakantappa K.Pujar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents No.1 and 2, Sri.V.B.Shivakumar, learned counsel for respondents No.3, 6, 7 and also for impleading respondent Nos.8 and 9. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for respondents No.3, 6 to 9 that after the re-grant, the original allottee- respondent No.3 and 4 sold the land in favour of respondents No.8 to 9 vide sale deed dated 13.11.2015 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45232 WP No. 38270 of 2013 and they are in possession of the subject land. Presently, the land comes within the limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. In such circumstances, the consideration of representation of the petitioner does not arise. 6. Having considered the contention, so also on perusal of the documents, since the lands in question after re- granting in favour of the vendor of the petitioner i.e. respondent No.3 and 4 was sold by them in favour of respondents No.8 and 9, I am of the considered view that the question of considering the representation of the petitioner does not arise. 7. If the petitioners are aggrieved in any manner, they are at liberty to approach the appropriate authorities by initiating appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35