- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28756 WP NO.13535 OF 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 13535 OF 2020 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI. ANJINAPPA S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT KODAGALAHATTI VILLAGE, HUNASAMARANAHALLI POST, JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK - 562 157. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KUMBAR VASANT FAKEERAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, KANDAYA BHAVANA, K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 009. 4. THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU NORTH (ADDL.) TALUK, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28756 WP NO.13535 OF 2020 YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. 5. SMT. BAIYAMMA D/O LATE JAKKAPPA, W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT SIDDENAHALLI VILLAGE, SULIBELE POST AND HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114. 6. SMT. MUNIAKKIAYYAMMA W/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 7. SRI. JAGADISH S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 8. SRI. ANANDA BABU S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS. 9. SMT. ASHA D/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 10. SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. 11. SRI. KRISHNA MURTHY S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. 12. SRI. CHIKKAVENKATAPPA S/O LATE KENCHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28756 WP NO.13535 OF 2020 13. SRI. KRISHNAPPA S/O LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. RESPONDENTS 6 TO 13 ARE R/AT KODAGALAHATTI VILLAGE H.M HALLI POST, JALA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 562 157. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. A. VIJAY KUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI, MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCTE FOR R6 TO R8, R10 AND R11; SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. S. HEMANTH BHARADWAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R13 RESPONDENT NO.12-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19TH JUNE, 2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN REVISION PETITION NO.362/2015-16 VIDE ANNEXURE-G; 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 order dated 19th June, 2020 (Annexure-G) passed by the respondent No.2 in Revision Petition No.362/2015-16; wherein the order dated 20th January, 2015 (Annexure-F) passed by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28756 WP NO.13535 OF 2020 respondent No.3 in case No.RA(BNA)110/2014-15 came to be set-aside. 2. Heard Sri. Kumbar Vasant Fakeerappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4; Sri. A. Vijay Kumar Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5; Sri. Mahesh Kiran Shetty, learned counsel appearing for respondents 6 to 8, 10 and 11; and Sri. D.R. Ravishankar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of Sri. S. Hemanth Bharadwaj, appearing for the respondent No.13. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the finding recorded by the respondent No.3 in the order dated 20th November, 2015 (Annexure-F) passed in case No. R.A.(BNA).110/2014-15 would indicate that the Original Suit No.228 of 2014 has been filed by respondent No.5-Baiyamma before the Senior Civil Judge at Devanahalli and the matter is inter se between the legal heirs of original propositus Venkatappa. It is forthcoming from the records that the property in question belonged to one Bajjanna S/o Venkatappa and as he bequeathed the said property, the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28756 WP NO.13535 OF 2020 same has been questioned before the Civil Court in Original Suit No.228 of 2014 by the respondent No.5-Baiyamma, which came to be dismissed. It is also forthcoming that the Writ Petition No.12653 of 2020 is filed by one Krishnappa S/o Anjinappa, wherein, this Court, by order dated 30th June, 2022 (Annexure-R5), rejected the petition. Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the order reads as under: "10. The writ petition is therefore rejected. However, it is needless to state that these revenue entries would be subject to the ultimate result of any litigation which is pending in the Civil suit and the parties obtaining a positive decree would be entitled to get their names entered in the revenue records on the basis of the said decree and the entries now ordered to be mutated as per order of the Deputy Commissioner would abide by the said decree subject to the above writ petition is dismissed. 11. 11. It is also made clear that this order shall not be construed as an order rendering any opinion on the possession of the parties over the land in question." 4. The aforesaid order passed in Writ Petition No.12653 of 2020 was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.989 of 2022, by judgment and order - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28756 WP NO.13535 OF 2020 dated 03rd September, 2025 (Annexure-R6). Paragraph 4 of the said judgment and order reads as under: "4. It is settled law that mutation entries do not confer any title. They are only for the purpose of ascertaining as to which party is liable for payment of land revenue. Matters relating to disputes of title are best adjudicated by the Court of competent jurisdiction. This being the law, we find no error in the order of the learned single judge that would merit consideration of this appeal. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. All pending I.As. are disposed of." 5. In that view of the matter, as the Original Suit No.228 of 2014 filed by the respondent No.5-Baiyamma came to be rejected before the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli on 04th April, 2026 (Annexure-R7) and the Original Suit No.238 of 2010 filed by the petitioner herein seeking relief of declaration and partition in respect of the subject property is pending consideration before the competent Civil Court, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has to await the judgment and decree that may be passed by the competent Civil Court in Original Suit No.238 of 2010. In the event, if the petitioner succeeds in the above suit in Original Suit No.238 of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28756 WP NO.13535 OF 2020 2010, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority for change of mutation/revenue entries in respect of the subject land. Therefore, for the present, no interference be called for in this petition. With this observation, writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3