- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25937 WP No. 9259 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.9259 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE SHETTYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 2. K. S. SADGUNA S/O LATE SHETTYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST. 3. K.S. BASAVAKUMAR S/O LATE SHETTYGOWDA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KALLANAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK - 572227, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. UMESH MOOLIMANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.V. PRAKASH,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25937 WP No. 9259 of 2023 M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU - 572101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TIPTUR SUB DIVISION, TIPTUR TUMAKURU - 572101. 4. THE TAHASILDAR TURUVEKERE TALUK, TURUVEKERE - 572227, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. 5. K S NANDEESH S/O LATE SHETTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDENTS OF KALLANAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TALUK - 572227, TUMAKURU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. M.G. SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17.03.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RP NO.113/2022 PRODUCED AS PER - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25937 WP No. 9259 of 2023 ANNX-F CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 09.02.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RA NO.188/2017-18 PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-E TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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. In this writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 17.03.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 in R.P. No. 113 of 2022 (Annexure- F), whereby the order dated 09.02.2022 passed by respondent No.3 in R.A. No. 188 of 2017 (Annexure- E) has been confirmed. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon careful consideration of the findings recorded by both the authorities, it is evident - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25937 WP No. 9259 of 2023 that the petitioners had sold the suit schedule property in favour of the contesting respondents herein under a registered Sale Deed dated 23.07.2003. Pursuant to the execution of the said registered Sale Deed, the khata in respect of the subject property was duly mutated in favour of the contesting respondents. 4. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the orders passed by the authorities calling for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as the petitioners themselves have executed registered Sale Deed in favour of the contesting respondents. 5. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the claim of title of the contesting respondents, it is always open to the petitioners to approach the competent Civil - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25937 WP No. 9259 of 2023 Court and establish their rights in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15