- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31306 WP No. 36434 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.36434 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ERAPPA, S/O LATE BOMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT ACHCHALU VILLAGE, SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU SOUTH DISTRICT-562126. 2. SRI. UMESH, S/O LATE MANCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT VARAGERA VILLAGE, 2ND BLOCK, 12TH MAIN, JNANABHARATHI, KENGERI, BENGALURU-560060. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PANCHAM R.D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31306 WP No. 36434 of 2025 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT, B M ROAD, RAMANAGARA-562159. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-562159. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT-562117. 5. SMT. SAMEENA FIRDOUS, D/O LATE SYED HUSSAIN @ NAWAB JAAN MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT ACHCHALU VILLAGE, SATHANUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT-56212. 6. SRI. SYED MOHIDDEEN S/O LATE SY SAMSHODDIN @ BAKSHISAAB, MAJOR IN AGE. 7. SRI. SYED THAJAM S/O LATE SYED HUSSAIN @ NAWAB JAAN, MAJOR IN AGE, ACHCHALU VILLAGE, SATHNUR HOBLI, KANAKAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT 56212. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SHARADA H.V., AGA FOR R1 TO R4) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31306 WP No. 36434 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.09.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.RP/93/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE- A AND TO RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2025 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN CASE NO.RA/137/2024-25 ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. In this Writ Petition, petitioners are assailing the order dated 29.05.2025 in RP/93/2025(Annexure-A), passed by respondent No.2 and to restore the order dated 11.04.2025 in case No.RA/137/2024-25 (Annexure-B), passed by respondent No.3. 3. It is contended by Sri. Pancham R.D., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the grandmother of the petitioners had acquired the right over the property in question - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31306 WP No. 36434 of 2025 as per the registered Sale Deed dated 31.05.1946 and therefore, the names of the petitioners have to be incorporated in the revenue records. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners placed reliance on the Judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of H. CHANNAHANUMAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in (2013) 5 KLJ 596 and submitted that delay will not come in the way of the revenue authorities to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, even though there is delay and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, Smt. Sharada H.V., learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, submitted that since the claim made by the petitioners is based on the registered Sale Deed dated 31.05.1946, much before our Country got independence, and therefore, the same cannot be accepted belatedly. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the finding recorded by both the authorities, the claim made by the petitioners is based on the registered Sale Deed dated - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31306 WP No. 36434 of 2025 31.05.1946. However, looking into the finding recorded by the respondent - authorities would indicate that there are disputed questions of title in respect of the land in question, and in that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS Vs. M.K. JOSE reported (2015) 9 SCC 433, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this Writ Petition. However, it is open for the petitioners to approach the competent Civil Court to establish right over the property in question, in a manner known to law. 6. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9