- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31414 RP No. 380 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REVIEW PETITION NO. 380 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI MUNEPPA AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, W/O. LATE MUNEPPA, RESIDING AT DODDAVALAGAMADI VILLAGE, ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR-563 122. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAV RAMANAND V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR-563 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, NEAR COURT CIRCLE, KOLAR-563 101. 3. THE TAHSILDAR BANGARPET TALUK, BANGARPET-563 114, KOLAR DISTRICT. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31414 RP No. 380 of 2024 4. SRI. MUNIYAPPA @ MUNEPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA, 5. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA, BOTH RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF DODDAVALAGAMADI VILLAGE, ROBERTSONPET HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR-563 122. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. HEMALATHA V, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SURESHA M., ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SEC.114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908 R/W ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE FINAL ORDER DATED 09.07.2024 PASSED IN W.P. NO. 8506/2022 (KLR-RES) AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. Sri Abhinav Ramanand V., learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner invited the attention of this - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31414 RP No. 380 of 2024 Court to the operative portion No.4 of the order dated 09.07.2024 in W.P.No.8506/2022 and submitted that, though this Court has allowed the writ petition and relegated respondent No.4/petitioner in the present review petition had to establish his right over the property in question before the competent Civil Court, and thereby set aside the MR No.14/1991-92. However, passed an order for restoration of the earlier mutation made in favour of the writ petitioners and same requires to be reviewed in this review petition. 3. Accordingly, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner claimed that, there is no error apparent on the face so as to relegating respondent No.4 in the writ petition to establish his right. However, since the right claimed by the respondent No.4, and writ petitioners, are from common ancestors, accordingly sought for interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, Sri Suresha M., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 and 5, submits that, since the writ petition came to be allowed by setting aside the order at Annexure-J in the writ petition and further the respondent No.4 in writ petition has to establish his right over the property - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31414 RP No. 380 of 2024 in question, accordingly submitted that no interference is called for in this revision petition. 5. Smt. Hemalatha V., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 sought to defend the order passed in the writ petition. 6. In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, and on careful consideration of the relationship between the parties, it would indicate that, the writ petitioners are the children of late Venkatappa and the said Venkatappa is the brother of the respondent No.4-Muneppa in writ petition. 7. In that view of the matter since the writ petitioners are claiming right over the property through inheritance, unless the rights of parties are to be crystallized before the Competent Civil Court, I am of the view that, the revenue records has to be mutated in favour of the (father of the respondent No.4- Muneppa in writ petition) i.e., late Ramappa @ Surahalli Ramappa. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31414 RP No. 380 of 2024 8. In that view of the matter, unless rights of the parties are crystallized in the suit referred to above, the respondent No.3 is hereby directed to, restore the name of Ramappa @ Surahalli Ramappa in the revenue records. 9. With these modification, the review petition stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE HR