- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26305 WP NO.39123 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.39123 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. KENCHAMMA W/O LATE K. THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, R/AT BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 149. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ROHIT B., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGESH S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 064. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK (ADDITIONAL), YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA ) Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26305 WP NO.39123 OF 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 15TH OCTOBER, 2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4, REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER FOR MUTATION OF THE REVENUE RECORDS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND MEASURING 1 ACRE 22 GUNTAS IN SURVEY NO.74, BLOCK NO.1 AND 30 GUNTAS IN SURVEY NO.74, BLOCK NO.2 OF BANDIKODIGEHALLI VILLAGE, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the Communication dated 15th October, 2025 (Annexure-A) made by the respondent No.4 with the respondent No.3. 2. Heard Sri. Rohit B., learned counsel on behalf of Sri. Nagesh S., appearing for the petitioner and Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful perusal of the writ papers, it is forthcoming that the petitioner is questioning the internal communication made by the respondent No.4 with the respondent No.3. It is to be noted that, nothing is stated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26305 WP NO.39123 OF 2025 about, how the petitioner got the impugned communication, though the same has not been served or marked to the petitioner. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of MAHADEO AND OTHERS vs. SOVAN DEVI AND OTHERS reported in (2023) 10 SCC 807, I am of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly, Writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7