- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35616 WP No. 8132 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 8132 OF 2021 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. MR. CHETHAN C.V. S/O MR. VENKATE GOWDA @ VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 2. MR. PRADEEP C.V. S/O MR VENKATE GOWDA, @ VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 3. MRS. VIJAYALAKSHMI W/O MR VENKATE GOWDA, @ VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT K T NO.200, 4TH CROSS ROAD, CHAMUNDESHWARI NAGARA, MANDYA-571401. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D. GANGADHARA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35616 WP No. 8132 of 2021 MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570019. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSURU SUB DIVISION, MYSURU-570019. 3. THE THASILDAR T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571101. 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570019. 5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE T. NARASIPURA CIRCLE, T. NARASIPURA - 571101. 6. THE SUB REGISTRAR T. NARASIPURA TALUK, T. NARASIPURA-571101. 7. MR. C.Y. NAGARAJU S/O LATE C.Y. YALAKKI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT CHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571105. 8. MR. C.Y. RAVI S/O LATE C.Y. YALAKKI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT SAPTHAGIRI NILAYA, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35616 WP No. 8132 of 2021 NO.397/1, 2ND CROSS ROAD, MARIGOWDA EXTENSION, MANDYA-571401. 9. MR. C.Y. SRINIVASA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O LATE C.Y. YALAKKI GOWDA, R/OF CHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571105. 10. MR. C.Y. YALAKKI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE C.Y. YALAKKI GOWDA, R/OF CHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571105. 11. MR. MAREGOWDA S/O MARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT YAMADUR VILLAGE AND POST, MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571430. 12. MR. GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, S/O MR. DASAIAH, R/AT GANGAMATHASTHARA HOSAKERE, BANNUR TOWN AND HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK-571105. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35616 WP No. 8132 of 2021 13. MR. B.M. NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, S/O MAYIGOWDA, R/AT BASAVESHWARA NILAYA, NO.28, NYAYA MARGA, SIDDARTHA EXTENSION, MYSURU-570019. 14. MR. L. KRISHNEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE LINGEGOWDA, R/AT ATTHAHALLI VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARSIPURA TALUK-571101. 15. MR. CHOWDEGOWDA @ SANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O DYVANNANA CHOWDEGOWDA, R/AT BEEDANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571105. 16. MR. VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O MR. BADDEGOWDA @ THIMMEGOWDA, R/AT CHAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANNUR HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571105. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. GANAPATI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R11; SRI. K.S. VENKATARAMANA, ADVOCATE FO R13; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35616 WP No. 8132 of 2021 SRI. P. NATARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R14; SRI. SHIVAKUMAR H., ADVOCATE FOR R16 R15 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.09.2019 PASSED IN RA NO.359/2018 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-N AS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND VOID; AND ETC. 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 04.09.2019 in R.A.No.359/2018 passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), as per Annexure-N to the Writ Petition. 3. Sri. K.S. Venkataramana, learned counsel for respondent No.13 submitted that the land in question was sold in favour of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35616 WP No. 8132 of 2021 respondent No.13 by the petitioners and therefore, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. In that view of the matter, as the impugned order is passed under Section 136(2) of the Act, the petitioners have the efficacious remedy under Section 136(3) of the Act and accordingly, the Writ Petition is not maintainable. 5. Accordingly, reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the competent authority under Section 136(3) of the Act, the Writ Petition is dismissed. 6. In that view of the matter, pending application if any, does not survive for consideration. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8