- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30550 WP No. 34036 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 34036 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: C. NANJUNDA REDDY @ C. NANJUNDAPPA, S/O CHIKKA JANGAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/AT NARAYANAKERE VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.S.B.HALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR, HOSAKOTE TALUK, HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 562 114. 3. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30550 WP No. 34036 of 2019 HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL ZILLA ADALITHA BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, BEERASANDRA GRAMA, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI - 562 007. 5. SRI. JANGAMA REDDY, S/O LATE JAVARAYA REDDY, AGED 48 YEARS, R/AT NARAYANAKERE VILLAGE, ANUGONDANAHALLI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK - 562 114, BANGALORE RURAL DIST. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI.PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 3.3.2017 PASSED BY THE A.C., DODDABALLAPUR, (ANNEXURE-A) AND ORDER DATED 12.7.2019 IN CASE NO.RP.NO.27/2017 PASSED BY THE DC RURAL DISTRICT, ZILLA ADALITHA BHAVAN, BEERASANDRA GRMA, KUNDENA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUIK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT (ANNEXURE-B) AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30550 WP No. 34036 of 2019 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this petition, the petitioner is assailing the Order dated 03.03.2017 (Annexure-A) passed in R.A.(H) No.46/2015-16 on the file of respondent No.3 and the Order dated 12.07.2019 in R.P.No.27/2017 (Annexure-B) on the file of respondent No.4. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the contesting respondent No.5 herein has challenged the mutation entry belatedly and the respondent No.3 without condoning the delay in filing the appeal has allowed the appeal preferred by the private respondent herein and therefore, sought for setting aside the impugned orders passed by the respondent - authorities. 4. It is also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner herein has never sold - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30550 WP No. 34036 of 2019 the land in favour of respondent No.5 herein. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, Sri.Pradeep Naik K, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 contended that the mutation has been made based on the registered Sale Deed dated 16.07.1975 and respondent No.5 came to know about non registering respondent No.5's father name in the mutation register only after the death of his father. Accordingly, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the petition. 6. Sri.Spoorthy Hegde N, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 also sought to justify the impugned orders. 7. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, as the impugned mutation entry has been made pursuant to the registered Sale Deed dated 16.07.1975, and that apart, respondent No.5 herein has filed a suit against the petitioner herein - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30550 WP No. 34036 of 2019 seeking injunctive relief as to interfering with the suit schedule property, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this petition. 8. The contention raised by the learned counsel insofar as the delay in changing the mutation is concerned, it is well established principle in law that the authorities are bound to, change the mutation entry based on the registered instruments as per Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 9. In that view of the matter, both the authorities have rightly rejected the claim made by the petitioner and in that view of the matter, no interference is called for in this matter. 10. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE GH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11