- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31793 WP NO.26805 OF 2025 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.26805 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. ANJINAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, MANCHANABALE VILLAGE AND POST, KASABA HOBALI, CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK - 562 101. 2. SMT. PUTTAMMA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 3. SRI. MUNIYAPPA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS. 4. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESHA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS. 5. SMT. SHILPHA D/O VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS. 6. SRI. SRIKANTH S/O LATE VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS. PETITIONERS 2 TO 6 ARE R/AT ANNESHWARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBALI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31793 WP NO.26805 OF 2025 7. SMT. MUNIKADIRAMMA @ MUNIRATHNAMMA W/O PALKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT NO.275, 14TH CROSS, MANORAYANAPALYA, O.A. CLONY, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK - 560 001. 8. SMT. AKKAYYAMMA D/O LATE PAAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. DVM COLONY, WARD-21, DEVANAHALLI TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 9. SMT. LAKSHMI, D/O PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS. 10. SRI. DEVARAJ S/O PAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. PETITIONERS 9 AND 10 ARE R/AT VENKATAGIRI KOTE VILLAGE AND POST, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 11. SRI. SHIVAPPA S/O LATE DUGGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT ANNESHWARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBALI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SRINATH A.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31793 WP NO.26805 OF 2025 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU RURAL - 560 049. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA - 561 203. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, KASABA HOBLI, ANNESHWARA VILLAGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. 5. SRI. MUNIYAPPA, S/O CHIKKAPAPANNA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, ANNESHWARA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBALI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. MANJUNATH M. HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06TH JANUARY, 2025 AND 30TH DECEMBER, 2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN CASE NO.R.A.(DE) 96/2022 VIDE ANNEXURES 'B' AND 'B1' AND FURTHER UPHELD IN THE APPEAL BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.RP/35/2025 DATED 24TH JULY, 2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AS BEING ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31793 WP NO.26805 OF 2025 ORAL ORDER In this petition, petitioners are challenging the orders dated 06th January, 2025 (Annexure-B) and 30th December, 2024 (Annexure-B1) passed by the respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner in Case No.RA(DE)96/2022 and order dated 24th July, 2025 (Annexure-C) passed by the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner in Case No.RP/35/2025; inter alia sought for a direction to the respondent-Authorities to restore the revenue entries and mutation records in respect of the subject land in favour of petitioners as per the re-grant order dated 31st July, 1981 (Annexure-A). 2. Heard Sri. Srinath A.R., learned counsel appearing for petitioners; Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4; and Sri. Manjunath M. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5. 3. Sri. Srinath A.R., learned counsel appearing for petitioners, by referring to the re-grant order dated 31st July, 1981 (Annexure-A) argued that the reasons assigned by the respondents 2 and 3 in the impugned orders to enter the name - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31793 WP NO.26805 OF 2025 of the respondent No.5 in the mutation register in respect of the subject land is required to be interfered with in this petition. 4. Per contra, Sri. Manjunath M. Hegde, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submits that the original grantees viz., Muniswamy and Duggappa, have sold the subject land to father of the respondent No.5 as per the registered Sale Deed dated 05th October, 1966. Accordingly, by placing reliance on the judgment of Full Bench of this Court in the case of SYED BASHEER AHAMED vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS reported in ILR 1994 KAR 159, learned counsel argued that re-grant does not invalidate or supersede the alienation. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. Smt. B.P. Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 sought to justify the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Authorities. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, Muniswamy and Duggappa have made a claim for re-grant of the subject land and the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31793 WP NO.26805 OF 2025 competent authority, by order dated 31st July, 1981 (Annexure- A) granted the subject land in favour of Muniswamy and Duggappa. In the meanwhile, before the order of re-grant dated 31st July, 1981 (Annexure-A), the said Muniswamy and Duggappa have sold the subject land in favour of the father of the respondent No.5 under the registered Sale Deed dated 05th October, 1966. Therefore, following the law declared by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of SYED BASHEER AHAMED (supra), I am of the view that the reason assigned by the respondent-Authorities in the impugned orders is just and proper. Therefore, no interference be called for in this petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69