- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36519-DB WA No. 1208 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI WRIT APPEAL NO. 1208 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. HINDUSTAN IDEAL ESTATE REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, SHRI. P.G.NATARAJ, S/O LATE GOVINDA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT R/AT NO.21/3, 13th MAIN SRINAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 050 2. SHRI P G NATARAJ S/O LATE GOVINDA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, R/AT NO.21/3, 13th MAIN SRINAGAR, BANGALORE- 560 050 …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. SUMATHI PAULINE M.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. B. L. RATNAMMA W/O LAKSHMANA GUPTA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, R/AT NO.6-6-37/10, KAVADIGUDA, SECUNDERABAD- 560 080 ALSO R/AT HOUSE NO.1188, 1ST FLOOR, FLAT NO.002, M MANOMAY HABITAT, Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36519-DB WA No. 1208 of 2024 35TH C CROSS, JAYANAGAR T BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 041 REPRESENTED BY GPA HOLDER RAMYA H.M. D/O H.S. MURUGESH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RA/T HOUSE BUILDING NO.71, HENLY VILLAGE, HEBBASALE POST OFFICE, SAKLESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 134. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETORY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU- 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009, 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G.ROAD, BENGALURU 560 009 5. THE TAHSILDAR YELAHANKA TALUK YALAHANKA- 560 064 6. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDHAR YELAHANKA TALUK YALAHANKA- 560 064 7. UMESH SHYAMA RAJU S/O PATHAPTI SHYAMA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.343, 4th MAIN, NEAR VIJAYA BANK, SADHASHIVANAGAR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36519-DB WA No. 1208 of 2024 BENGALURU 560 080 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH, AGA FOR R-2 TO R-6; SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W SRI. MANU K., ADVOCATE AND SRI. AJAY J. NANDALIKE, ADVOCATE FOR R-7; R-1 - SERVED & UN-REPRESENTED) *** THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01/07/2022 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.7039/2022, ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons as set out in the affidavit accompanying the application, I.A.No.1/2024, the same is allowed. The delay of 707 (seven hundred and seven) days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The appellants [M/s. Hindustan Ideal Estate and Shri. P.G. Nataraj] have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 01.07.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7039/2022 (KLR-RES). The said petition was filed by respondent - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36519-DB WA No. 1208 of 2024 No.1 [Smt. B.L. Ratnamma], through her constituted attorney, inter alia, seeking that the impugned order dated 10.02.2022 passed by the third respondent [Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District] in Revision Petition No.298/2021, be set aside. By virtue of the said impugned order, the respondent No.3 [the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District] had set aside the order passed by respondent No.4 [the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division] and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. 3. The dispute, essentially, centres around, the subject property measuring 19 acres 10 guntas comprised in Survey No.35, situated at Sathanur Village, Jala Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk, Bengaluru Urban District [subject property]. Respondent No.1 claims that her husband had purchased the subject property under a registered Sale Deed dated 26.11.1970, from one Abdul Rahiman @ Nazeer Ahmed. Appellants also claim to derive their title in the same person. 4. The appellants claim that the respondent No.1 had executed an Affidavit, relinquishing the rights in respect of the subject property and by virtue of the said Affidavit, appellant No.2 became - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36519-DB WA No. 1208 of 2024 the absolute owner of the subject property. Appellant No.1 - firm executed a Sale Deed in favour of respondent No.7 - Sri Umesh Shyama Raju and the subject property was recorded in the name of respondent No.7. However, by virtue of an order dated 07.10.2021 passed by the respondent No.4 [the Assistant Commissioner], the revenue entries were restored in favour of respondent No.1. The said order of restoring the entries was set aside by the order dated 10.02.2022, which was impugned by the respondent No.1 in the writ petition [Writ Petition No.7039/2022 (KLR-RES)]. During the course of the said petition, the contesting parties, that is, respondent No.1, who was the petitioner in the said petition and respondent Nos.6 to 8 [appellants herein and respondent No.7 herein] furnished a memo to the effect that the parties have resolved the dispute and the petition be allowed. Consequently, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order, allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order dated 10.02.2022. By virtue of the said order, the revenue entries stood reverted to the name of respondent No.1. 5. It is the appellants' case that appellant No.2's signature appearing on the General Power of Attorney – on the strength of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36519-DB WA No. 1208 of 2024 which the memo was filed on his behalf before the learned Single Judge – is forged. 6. It is on the basis of the aforesaid submission that the appellants pray that the impugned order be set aside. 7. However, it is pointed out that the appellants had also filed an application (I.A.No.2/2024) seeking recall of the impugned order dated 01.07.2022 before the learned Single Judge on the same ground. The said application was withdrawn unconditionally. The order accepting the request for withdrawal of the said application, is set out below: Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to withdraw I.A.No.2/2024 filed for recalling the order dated 01.07.2022. The said submission is accepted and I.A.No.2/2024 is dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.1/2024 filed for condoning the delay of 396 days in filing the recalling application is also dismissed. 8. There is no dispute that the aforesaid application was moved on the same ground as is set out in the present petition assailing the impugned order. We are unable to accept that the appellants - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36519-DB WA No. 1208 of 2024 can reagitate their challenge to the order after having unconditionally withdrawn the application for recall of the said order. 9. It is the appellants' case that appellant No.2 could not have executed a Special Power of Attorney on the said date, as his application for anticipatory bail had been rejected and therefore he was absconding. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7 has handed over a memo including a copy of the appellant’s application/Criminal Petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, filed before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru. Paragraph 19 of the said Memorandum is relevant and is set out below: 19. The petitioner further submits that accordingly the dispute involved between the second respondent and the petitioner concerning the land in question which had emerged has been resolved and settled. In terms of the memo filed by the eighth respondent in the said petition, accordingly this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order in W.P.No.7039/2022, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is set aside and the order of the Assistant Commissioner has been restored. Further, it is directed by the Hon'ble Court that the Tahsildar shall mutate the name of Smt.B.L. Rathnamma in respect of the land in question. In view of the memo submitted by the eighth respondent, the dispute between the parties has come to an end as the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36519-DB WA No. 1208 of 2024 dispute has been resolved amicably between the second respondent, her vendor Smt.B.L. Rathnamma, sixth, seventh and eighth respondents in the said writ petition as stated above with the eighth respondent purchaser by filing a memo before this Hon'ble Court. Since the matter has been resolved between the parties, there is nothing that survives to investigate the matter further by the first respondent Police against the present petitioner as the same has been concluded amicably by resolving the dispute between them. 11. As is apparent from the above, the appellants had expressly averred that dispute had been resolved amicably and a memo – which the appellants claim was without her consent and knowledge – was filed before the Court. This Court had asked the learned counsel for the appellants, whether there was any dispute that the said petition has been filed by the appellant No.2 [Mr.P.G. Nataraja]. She had fairly responded that there is no dispute that the aforesaid petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was filed by appellant No.2. However, she states that the same was rejected. 12. In view of the above, we are unable to accept that there are any grounds to set aside the impugned order. The appellants, having exhausted their remedy by withdrawing the application for recall of the impugned order dated 01.07.2022, passed by the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36519-DB WA No. 1208 of 2024 learned Single Judge, are now precluded from challenging the impugned order on the same grounds. More importantly, we are unable to accept that the present appeal has any merit in view of the express averments made by the appellant No.2 in his petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as set out above. 13. The appeal is unmerited and is accordingly, dismissed. 14. Pending applications also stand disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE BMV* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25