- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29164 WP No. 11414 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.11414 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ERAMMA W/O CHIKKANNA, D/O LATE GUNDEERAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DODDA HEDIGEHALLI, HAGALAWADI HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 222. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANGADHARAPPA A.V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR-572101. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TUMKUR SUB-DIVISION, TUMKUR-572101. 3. TAHSILDAR GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572216. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29164 WP No. 11414 of 2025 4. SMT. SHIVAMMA W/O CHITTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDENT OF DODDA HEDIGEHALLI, HAGALAWADI HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572222. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 13.09.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CAS NO. RRT(A)CR 342/2022 AND THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO. RP 238/2022 RELATING THE LAND BEARING SY NO. 13/1 MEASURING 6 ACRES 31 GUNTAS SITUATED IN NAYKANAHALLI, HAGALAVADI HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK TUMKUR DIST IS CONCERNED CERTIFIED COPIES OF WHICH ARE PRODUCED AS ANNEXURES-A AND C RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29164 WP No. 11414 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this Writ Petition, petitioner is assailing the Order dated 13.09.2022 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-A), wherein the direction has been issued to enter the name of respondent No.4 in the revenue records. 3. Sri. A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended by inviting the attention of the Court to Annexure-A that petitioner has not been heard in the matter while passing the impugned order by respondent No.2. It is also argued that Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 has been invoked by the competent authority and therefore, unless petitioner herein has been heard in the matter as the fact is that petitioner is in possession of the land and therefore, such a power cannot be invoked by the respondent No.2 and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 4. Sri. T. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4, invited the attention of the Court to the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29164 WP No. 11414 of 2025 registered Sale Deed dated 20.06.1978 (Annexure-R1) appended to the statement of objections and contended that, father of the petitioner herein has sold aforementioned land in favour of husband of respondent No.4 and therefore, petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the impugned order at Annexure-A. It is further contended by referring to Section 25 of the Act, that the authorities have invoked the inherent powers to meet ends of justice and also suit in O.S.No.32/2023 filed by the petitioner herein against the respondent herein is pending consideration before the competent Court and as such, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the order at Annexure-A would indicate that father of the petitioner herein has sold the land in favour of husband of respondent No.4 as per the registered Sale Deed dated 20.06.1978 (Annexure-R1) and in that view of the matter, as the entry in revenue records has been made pursuant to the registered Sale Deed and further - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:29164 WP No. 11414 of 2025 suit in O.S.No.32/2023 is pending consideration before the Civil Court, wherein rights of the parties has to be crystallised, I am of the view that, the respondent - authorities have rightly invoked the inherent power under Section 25 of the Act and that apart since the land in question has been sold by the father of the petitioner herein, I do not find any acceptable reasons to accept the contention of the learned counsel that petitioner has to be heard in the matter. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14