- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29514 WP No. 17984 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION No. 17984 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SHREE MAHAKALESHWARA RELIGIOUS AND CHARITABLE TRUST, SITUATED AT GURUPURA, SY No.94/1 MULURU VILLAGE, GURUPURA HOBLI MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE, SRI VARDHAMANA DURGAPRASAD SHETTY, S/O LATE K. PADMANABA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MULURU VILLAGE, GURUPURA HOBLI, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-5750 01. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VINOD KUMAR M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALURU SUB-DIVISION, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29514 WP No. 17984 of 2026 MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, MANGALURU TALUK, MANGALURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 06.06.2026 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT-ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALURU SUB DIVISION, IN RRT(2) S.R.66/2020, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-Q PROPOSING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2020 AND TO DELETE THE PETITIONER TEMPLE'S NAME FROM COLUMN 11 OF RTC IN RESPECT OF 0.89 ACRE IN SY.No.94/1 OF MULURU VILLAGE, GURUPURA HOBLI, MANGALURU TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT 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 the respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the impugned notice dated 06.06.2026 (Annexure-Q) issued by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29514 WP No. 17984 of 2026 respondent No.2 to the petitioner with regard to deleting the name of the petitioner Temple in Column No.11 of the RTC. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the order dated 27.10.2020 (Annexure-D) passed by respondent No.2, whereby respondent No.2 has accepted the appeal and directed respondent No.3 to enter the name of the Temple in question in the revenue records. Learned counsel further submitted that however, on the same subject land, respondent No.2 has issued notice to review the said order, which is not permissible in law and accordingly, sought for interference by this Court. 4. In the light of the aforesaid submissions and on a careful consideration of the proceedings in RRT(2) S.R.66/2020-21 before respondent No.2, which concluded on 27.10.2020 (Annexure-D), wherein the appeal filed under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 was accepted by respondent No.2 and therefore directed respondent No.3 to enter the name of the Temple in question in Column 11 of the revenue records. The respondent No.2 being a quasi judicial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29514 WP No. 17984 of 2026 authority has no authority under law to review its own order unless the law provides for it. 5. I find force in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the impugned notice at Annexure-Q is contrary to the law. Therefore, I pass the following: Order (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) The impugned notice dated 06.06.2026 at Annexure-Q passed by respondent No.2 and further proceedings, if any, also stand quashed. Pending interlocutory application, if any, stand disposed of as not surviving. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46