- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26663 WP No. 9344 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 9344 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. LAKSHMANA, SON OF LATE VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT: KURADIHALLI VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, BHAKTHARAHALLI POST, KUNIGAL TALUK-572 130. TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KANTHARAJU N.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU-572 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMAKURU SUB-DIVISION, TUMAKURU-572 101. 3. THE TALUK SHERISTEDAR, TALUK OFFICE, KUNIGAL-572 130. 4. SRI. H.V. GANGANNA, SON OF LATE VENKATAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26663 WP No. 9344 of 2024 OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT: KURADIHALI VILLAGE, KOTHAGERE HOBLI, BHAKTHARAHALLI POST, KUNIGAL TALUK-572 130. TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE. N, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE R-1 AND 2 IN REVISION PETITION NO. 5/2023 AND RA (KUN) 289/2017, TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 30.07.2023 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN NO. RP 5/2023 DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION WHERE UNDER CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DTD 19.09.2021 IN RA (KUN) 289/2017 WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS ANNX-A AND B TO THE WP AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. In this petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 31.07.2023 (Annexure-A), passed by respondent No.1 in RP.No.5/2023. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26663 WP No. 9344 of 2024 3. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that as per the impugned order at Annexure-A, joint khata has been made in so far as the petitioner and contesting respondent herein, however, the suit in OS.No.166/1989 is pending consideration before the competent Civil Court at Kunigal. 4. It is further argued that the said suit is not for relief of partition, and the same is for seeking relief of declaration. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order at Annexures - A and B require interference by this Court. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader submitted that as the rights of the parties are yet to be crystallized in OS.No.166/1989, there is no perversity in the orders passed by both the Authorities and accordingly sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the findings - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26663 WP No. 9344 of 2024 recorded by respondent - authorities below would indicate that there is a dispute within the family, as to the petitioner and contesting respondent is concerned. In that view of the matter, since the suit in OS No.166/1989 is pending consideration before the competent Civil Court, I am of the view that, the findings recorded by both the authorities to continue the khata in the joint names of the parties are just and proper and do not call for interference in the present petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. However, it is open for the parties to approach the competent Authorities after conclusion of the proceedings in the above mentioned suit. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21