- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27368 WP No. 27494 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.27494 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS. 2. CHOWDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS. 3. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, W/O VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R./AT ARURU VILALGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 4. KEMPANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. 5. DODDANARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS. 6. CHIKKANARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS. 7. SMT. RATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O NARAYANASWAMY, R/AT MUSTURU VILLAGE, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27368 WP No. 27494 of 2024 KASABA HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. 8. VENKATESHA, S/O VENKATAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ALL ARE CHILDREN OF LATE CHIKKATHIPPANNA PETITIONERS 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 AND 8 R/AT OF ANEMADAGUKOTHURU VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHICKABALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.R. SREEPRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT, CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562101. 3. THE TAHASILDAR CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPUR - 562101. 4. SMT. NARASAMMA, W/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS. 5. SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27368 WP No. 27494 of 2024 6. SRI. BYRAREDDY S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 7. SRI. VENKATAREDDY S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. R4 TO R7 ARE R/AT KOTGAL VILLAGE, SADALIHOBLI, SIDLAGHATTA TALUK, CHICKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 8. BYREGOWDA S/O LATE ASHWATHAPPA SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. R4 TO R7. 9. MR. SUBBAREDDY, S/O LATE A.S. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT ANEMADAGU KOTHURU VILLAGE, MANDIKAL HOBLI, CHICKBALLAPUR TALUK AND DISTRICT - 562 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; V/O DATED 26.11.2025 R8 IS DEAD AND R4 TO R7 ARE THE LRS. OF R8; R9 IS DEAD; SRI. MANJUNATH B.R., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RRT(D)CR 1/2017-18 VIDE ANNX-C CONFIRMED IN ORDER DTD RA(CHIKKA) 23/2019-20 DATED - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27368 WP No. 27494 of 2024 9.11.2023 VIDE ANNX-D PASSED BY THE R-2 ANT EH ORDER DTD 23.09.2024 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN RA 119/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-E; 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 writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 25.10.2018 (Annexure–C) passed by Respondent No.3; the order dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure–D) passed by Respondent No.2 and the order dated 23.09.2024 (Annexure–E) passed by Respondent No.1. 2. Heard Sri S.R. Sreeprasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri Manjunath B.R., learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.4 to 7, and Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27368 WP No. 27494 of 2024 Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State. 3. Sri. Sreeprasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that the land in question originally belonged to late Baiyamma, who had sold the same to Venkata Reddy (petitioner No.1). Thereafter, the petitioners have been in lawful possession and enjoyment of the said land. 4. It was further submitted that respondent No.3, at the instance of the contesting respondents, claimed to be the foster son of late Baiyamma and filed an application requesting that, the names of the contesting respondents to be entered, however, respondent No.3, rejected the claim, directing him to approach the Assistant Commissioner for redressal of his grievance vide order dated 18.11.2016 (Annexure- A). Aggrieved by the said order, the Ashwatappa, - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27368 WP No. 27494 of 2024 preferred an appeal before respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, as evidenced at Annexure-B. Respondent No.2, by its order, set aside the order passed by respondent No.3 at Annexure-A and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by looking into based on EC and registered Sale Deeds. 5. It is contended that, despite the remand, respondent No.3 once again erroneously entered the names of the contesting respondents in the mutation records by order dated 06.10.2018 (Annexure-C). The said order was subsequently confirmed by respondents Nos.1 and 2 under the orders produced at Annexures-D and E. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders and the consequential mutation entries, the petitioners have presented this writ petition seeking appropriate reliefs. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27368 WP No. 27494 of 2024 6. Per contra, Sri Manjunath B.R., learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.4 to 7, submitted that the revenue authorities, upon considering the material available on record, have rightly ordered mutation in favour of the contesting respondents and therefore, the impugned orders do not call for interference. 7. Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent- State to justify the impugned orders. 8. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, a careful consideration of the facts would indicate that the petitioners herein had purchased the schedule property under a registered Sale Deed dated 24.08.1970 from one Baiyamma. Thereafter, the Spot Inspection report dated 29.07.2016, as culled out - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27368 WP No. 27494 of 2024 from Annexure-A, would indicate that the petitioners are in possession of the land in question. 9. The records further disclose that respondent No.3 committed an error in changing the khata in favour of Ashwatappa (husband of respondent No.4 and father of respondents Nos.5 to 8) on the ground that the said Baiyamma was the Mother of late Ashwatappa. However, the said order at Annexure-A was rightly quashed by respondent No.2 by order dated 26.02.2018 (Annexure-B), and the matter was remitted to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration. 10. After remand, respondent No.3 passed the order dated 06.10.2018 (Annexure-C) and once again committed an error by entering the names of the respondents in the mutation register. Respondents Nos.1 and 2, without proper application of mind and without considering the factual aspects on record, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27368 WP No. 27494 of 2024 confirmed the mutation entries in favour of the contesting respondents. 11. The said orders are liable to be set aside, as the petitioners are claiming right over the property on the basis of the registered Sale Deed dated 24.08.1970, whereby late Baiyamma sold the property in favour of the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners have continued to remain in possession of the land in question. 12. In that view of the matter, respondent No.3 is directed to enter the names of the petitioners in the Mutation Register in respect of the land in question within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 13. However, taking into consideration the submission advanced by the learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.4 to 7, it is open to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27368 WP No. 27494 of 2024 them to establish their rights before the competent civil Court in a manner know to law. 14. Accordingly, the order dated 25.10.2018 (Annexure-C), passed by respondent No.3; the order dated 09.11.2023 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent No.2 and order dated 23.09.2024 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure-E) are hereby set aside. 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Pending applications, if any, stand dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5