- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25791 WP No. 13234 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 13234 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: NARASIMHAIAH, S/O. LATE PUTTAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HIS LEGAL HEIR, SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA, AGE 65 YEARS, W/O. LATE. NARASIMHAIAH, R/O. SHETTIPALYA, URDIGERE HOBLI, TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT – 572 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V.PRAKASH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA , BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU – 572 101. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25791 WP No. 13234 of 2018 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU – 572 101. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, TUMAKURU TALUK – 572 101. 5. a) YALAMMA, (SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS) NAGARAJU, S/O. LATE YALAMMA, AGE 60 YEARS, R/O. NO.11, 1ST CROSS, PIPELINE, CHOLURAPALYA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 023. b) SAVITHRAMMA, D/O. LATE YALAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/O. C/O. NARAYANAPPA, NO.11, 1ST CROSS, PIPELINE, CHOLURAPLAYA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 023. c) SAROJAMMA, D/O. LATE YALAMMA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O C/O NARAYANAPPA, NO.11, 1ST CROSS, PIPELINE, CHOLURAPLAYA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 023. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25791 WP No. 13234 of 2018 6. a) CHANDRASHEKAR (SINCE DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS) SHANTHAMMA, W/O LATE CHANDRASHEKAR, R/AT NO.23, 2ND FLOOR, 3RD CROSS, SHIVANANDANAGARA, MOODALAPALYA, BENGALURU – 560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI.M.B.CHANDRACHOODA, ADVOCATE FOR R6(a)) ------- THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2018 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE NO.R.P.NO. 49/2012-13 VIDE ANNEXURE - C IN SITTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.7.2005 PASSED BY THE R-3 IN PROCEEDINGS VIDE ANNEXURE - B AND RESTORING THE ORDER DATED 19.8.1996 PASSED BY R-4 IN PROCEEDINGS VIDE ANNEXURE - A TO W.P. 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25791 WP No. 13234 of 2018 ORAL ORDER In this writ petition the petitioner is assailing the order dated 26.02.2018 in R.P.No.49/2012-13 (Annexure-C) setting aside the order dated 07.07.2005 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure-B) and accordingly, sought for restoration of the order dated 19.08.1996 passed by respondent no.4. 2. I have heard Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Manjunath.K, learned HCGP for respondents no.1 to 4 and Sri M.B.Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the respondent no.6(a). 3. Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Revision Petition No.49/2012-13 was filed before respondent no.2 belatedly and respondent no.2 without condoning the delay in filing the Revision Petition, has passed the impugned order at Annexure-C, which requires to be interfered with in this writ petition. It is further submitted by Sri S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner that, the entire proceedings is based on the alleged Partition Deed dated 15.12.1984 between the parties and therefore, sought for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25791 WP No. 13234 of 2018 quashing the order dated 26.02.2018, passed in the revision petition at Annexure-C to the writ petition. 4. Sri M.B. Chandrachooda, learned counsel for the respondent no.6(a) submitted that, the petitioner and the husband of respondent no.5 are brothers and entire RRT proceedings has been made pursuant to the Partition Deed dated 15.12.1984 and therefore, sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Learned AGA sought to justify the impugned orders. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and, on careful examination of the order at Annexure-B, it would indicate that respondent no.3 has allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein on 07.07.2005 and thereafter, Revision Petition has been filed before respondent no.2 during the year 2012. Undisputedly, there is a delay in preferring the petition and to that extent, I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner as, respondent no.2 ought to have consider the application, if any, filed by the petitioner therein seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:25791 WP No. 13234 of 2018 7. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the order impugned at Annexure-C is set aside and the matter be remitted to respondent no.2 to reconsider the Revision Petition afresh in the light of the observations, made above. With the above said observations, the writ petition is accordingly, disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE rs List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51