- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33546 WP No. 13205 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.13205 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA W/O. LATE N. LINGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/AT INDAVALU VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANANDA H.J., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA-571 401. 3. THASILDAR MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA-571 401. 4. REVENUE INSPECTOR KOTHATHI HOBLI MANDYA TALUK & DISTRICT - 571 401. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33546 WP No. 13205 of 2026 5. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O. LATE NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT MAJOR, INDUVALU VILLAGE, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.01.2026 PASSED IN CASE NO. RP NO.135/2024 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-A; SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.02.2024 PASSED IN CASE NO. R. MISC NO.643/2019 BY THE RESPONDENTNO.2 VIDE AT ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE RP NO.135/2024 FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE AT ANNEXURE-M AS PRAYED FOR. 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 Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33546 WP No. 13205 of 2026 3. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 06.01.2021 passed by respondent No.1 in RP No.135/2024 (Annexure-A) and the consequential order dated 01.02.2024 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure-B), and has sought for allowing RP No.135/2024 filed by the petitioner and other consequential reliefs. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon careful consideration of the material on record, this Court finds that there is a serious discrepancy with regard to the name of the petitioner's father in law (Whether name of father in law of the petitioner is B Nanjegowda or Gendegowda). While certain revenue records describe him as N. Lingegowda, son of B. Nanjegowda, other records describe him as N. Lingegowda, son of Gendegowda. Similar discrepancies are also found in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33546 WP No. 13205 of 2026 MR No.151/1971-72 and the RTC extracts pertaining to the year 1976-77. 5. In view of the aforesaid discrepancy, the dispute essentially relates to the identity of the true owner of the land in question and the petitioner's claim to succession through legal lineage of the family. Such disputed questions of fact, involving title and succession, cannot be adjudicated in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that the findings recorded by both the respondent-authorities do not call for interference of this Court. It is for the petitioner to establish before the competent Civil Court whether N. Lingegowda, son of B. Nanjegowda, or N. Lingegowda, son of Gendegowda, is the owner of the land in question and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33546 WP No. 13205 of 2026 to establish the petitioner's right, title and interest, if any, over the said property. 7. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court, as observed by the respondent-authorities, for appropriate relief. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12