- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35778 WP No. 18645 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 18645 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O LATE ANDANA SHETTY, 2. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O LATE ANDANA SHETTY, BOTH ARE RESIDING AT AGRAHARA LAYOUT, K.R. PETE TOWN, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. PIN - 571426. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PARAMESHWARAPPA M. V., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA - 571401. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, PANDAVAPURA, PIN - 571434. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35778 WP No. 18645 of 2026 3. THE TAHASILDAR, K.R.PETE TALUK, K.R. PETE-571426. 4. SMT.JAYAMMA W/O JAYARAM, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 5. SMT. HONNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O LATE SIDDA SHETTY, 6. SMT. JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, W/O LATE BYRA SHETTY, 7. SRI. KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O LATE BYRA SHETTY, 8. SMT. BHAGYA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, D/O LATE BYRA SHETTY, 9. SRI. ANDANA SHETTY, S/O KENGA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESPONDENTS 4 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AT AGRAHARA LAYOUT, K.R. PETE TOWN, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT, PIN - 571426. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35778 WP No. 18645 of 2026 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN R.P.NO.269/2025 DATED 24-3-2026 IN RESPECT OF THE IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.7/1A1, MEASURING 1 ACRE 26 1/2 GUNTAS SITUATED AT ANUVINAKERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, K.R. PETE TALUK AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC., 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 respondents No.1 to 3. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 24.03.2026 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1 in respect of the subject land. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the impugned order at Annexure-A, would indicate that respondent No.1 has set aside the order passed by respondent No.2 and relegated the parties to approach respondent No.3 as to change of mutation in respect of the subject land, based - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:35778 WP No. 18645 of 2026 on the registered sale deed as well as the partition deed dated 15.09.1966. 4. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, as the matter is remanded to respondent No.3, no interference is called for in this petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE MCR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29