- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32654 WP No. 12875 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.12875 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. ROOPAVATHI V. S/O SRI N BALARAJ, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.19, NANJEGOWDA BEEDHI, NEAR LALBAGH MAIN GATE, DODDAMAVALLI, BENGALURU-560004. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JNANESH KUMAR K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU-560009. 3. TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106. 4. SRI. H.K. NAGARAJU S/O LATE H KESHAVAIAH, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32654 WP No. 12875 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/AT NO.1201, 8TH CROSS, 1ST PHASE, 2ND PHASE, CHANDRA LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560040. 5. SRI. H.R. JOTHAIAH S/O LATE RACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O HENNAGARA VILLAGE AND POST, JIGANI HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICDT-560099. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. M.C. JAYAKIRTHI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-E DATED 30/05/2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE R.P. NO.162/2019. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Learned counsel appearing for the parties are heard. 2. In the present writ petition, the petitioner has called in question the order dated 30.05.2023 at - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32654 WP No. 12875 of 2023 Annexure-E passed by respondent No.1 in R.P.No.162 of 2019. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon careful consideration of the findings recorded by both the authorities, it is evident that there are two registered sale deeds pertaining to the very same subject property. One sale deed is dated 27.11.2014 (Annexure-A), under which the petitioner claims title, and the other is the sale deed dated 22.05.1997, produced as Annexure-R2. 4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon careful consideration of the findings recorded by both the authorities, it is evident that there are two sale deeds pertaining to the same subject property. In particular, one sale deed dated 27.11.2014 has been executed in favour of the petitioner herein, while another sale deed dated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32654 WP No. 12875 of 2023 27.05.1997, produced as Annexure-R2, also relates to the same property. 5. In view of the existence of two sale deeds concerning the same subject land, this Court is of the opinion that the disputed question of title and rights over the property requires adjudication by the competent Civil Court. Therefore, no interference is called for in the present writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the competent Civil Court for establishing his right, title, and interest over the property in question. The writ petition stands dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5