- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27072 WP No. 8130 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 8130 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. LAKSHMAIAH, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, UGANVADI POST – 562 110, KASABA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S PATIL, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VARAPRASAD K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DISTRICT COMPLEX, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI - 562 110, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA – 561 203, BENGALURU RUARAL DISTRICT. Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27072 WP No. 8130 of 2022 3. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI – 562 110, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 4. SRI. NAGARAJU, S/O LATE DODDASAMPANGAPPA, R/O T. HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI – 562 110, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI.B.KRISHNAGOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 7.3.2022 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN REVISION PETITION NO.196/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-Q AND ETC., 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 In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 07.03.2022 in R.P.No.196/2019 (Annexure-Q) passed by respondent No.1. 2. Heard Sri..Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned High Court - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27072 WP No. 8130 of 2022 Government Pleader for respondent - authorities and Sri.B.Krishnagowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 3. Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of the court to the registered sale deed dated 02.11.1966 in which, Sampangappa son of Heggappa has executed the registered sale deed in favour of Narayanappa son of Meke Basappa in respect of the subject land and the petitioner herein is the purchaser of the land mentioned at Annexure-C to the petition. In that view of the matter, learned Senior counsel submitted that the respondent No.3 without issuing notice to the petitioner herein, being the purchaser of land in question, mutated the land in favour of respondent No.4 based on the fact that the father of respondent No.4 and Nagappa son of Heggappa are the brothers. Since, the original sale deed has been effected on 02.11.1966, the respondent No.4 herein had illegally got the mutation in their favour after a lapse of more than five decades and the said aspect has been confirmed by respondent No.1 erroneously as per Annexure-Q. It is also contended by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27072 WP No. 8130 of 2022 since, the matter is of civil nature, respondent No.3 ought to have relegated the respondent No.4 to establish his right in respect of the subject land concerned and accordingly sought for interference of this court. 4. Per contra, Sri.B.Krishnagowda, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that the land in question, which has been mentioned in the schedule at Annexure C and the claim made by the petitioner herein has nothing to do with the schedule land belonging to respondent No.4 herein which is Sy.No.10 of T.Hosahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli and therefore, he contended that the land claimed by the petitioner is different from the land belonging to the respondent No.4, herein before respondent No.3 - authority and therefore, as the suit in O.S.No.811/2015 is pending consideration before the competent civil court filed by the petitioner herein and as the petitioner has to establish the right over the property in question, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 is just and proper and the same has to be confirmed in this writ petition. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27072 WP No. 8130 of 2022 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader argued on similar lines with regard to distinct nature of the land in question concerned and accordingly sought to justify the impugned order at Annexure-Q. 6. In the light of the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, originally the land in question belong to Nagappa son of Heggappa and the said Naggappa died on 05.06.1951 as per death certificate produced at Annexure-F. The brother of Nagappa - Sampangappa has sold the house list No.14 - classified as Khaneshumari as per the registered sale deed dated 02.11.1966 in favour of one Narayanappa son of Meke Basappa. The petitioner herein is the purchaser from the said Meke Basappa. In that view of the matter, though the dispute relating to the title is to be established by the parties, the finding recorded by respondent No.1 as to the fact that the land in question is Khaneshumari land, which has been sold as per Annexure-C and the respondent No.4 herein has mutated the revenue record in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.10 of Hosahalli village, I find force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4 with regard to different survey number of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27072 WP No. 8130 of 2022 the land in question and accordingly, no interference is called for in this writ petition with regard to the order passed by respondent No.1 concerned. However, in view of the fact that the suit is already filed in O.S.No.811/2015 by the petitioner herein and therefore, the rights of the parties will be crystallized in the suit referred to above as per Annexure-H to the writ petition. It is also made clear that it is open to the petitioner herein to establish his right over the property in question in view of the schedule mentioned at Annexure-C as well as the land claimed by the respondent No.4 herein seeking mutation in respect of Sy.No.10 of Hosahalli Village. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Any observation made by this court insofar as the documents referred to by the parties herein cannot be influenced by the trial court while deciding the suit on merits. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51