- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18596-DB WA No. 916 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT APPEAL NO. 916 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. ANNAIAH, S/O. LATE BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, RESIDING AT: ARJUNAHALLI VILAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 111. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KASHINATH J D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. VARADARAJU, S/O LATE KENGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. 2. SMT. VARADAMMA, D/O LATE KENGAIAH, W/O THIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS. RESPONDENT NO.1 & 2 ARE RESIDING AT: ARJUNAHALLI VILLAGE, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18596-DB WA No. 916 of 2025 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYATH, KUNIGAL TALUK, KUNIGAL TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. 4. THE PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, YADAVANI GRAMA PANCHAYATH, AMRUTHUR HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANANDA V., ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2, SRI. A. NAGARAJAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:27.11.2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP No.14954/2023 (LB-RES), CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE WP FILED BY THE PETITIONER/RESPONDENT No.1 AND 2 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18596-DB WA No. 916 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present intra Court appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 27.11.2024 passed by the writ Court in WP.No.14954/2023. 2. Parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ Court for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioners filed writ petition seeking Writ of Certiorari to cancel the order passed by the Executive Officer, Taluk Panchayath, Kunigal, dated 02.03.2023 and requested for mutation in favour of petitioner No.2 in respect of the property in question. 4. The learned single Judge having noticed the fact has found that the disputed question of facts are involved which have already been decided in the Civil Suit in OS.No.254/2001 on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.,) Kunigal. The Civil Court had examined whether the third respondent could dispute the petitioners' title to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18596-DB WA No. 916 of 2025 the subject property relying upon the sale deed dated 12.05.1986 executed by Smt.Rangamma and her sons. The Civil Court vide its judgment and decree dated 16.04.2007 had decreed the petitioners' suit holding that the third respondent who claimed title and possession of the property measuring East to West-30 feet and North to South-35 feet, had failed to establish either title or possession of the subject property. 5. The revenue authorities have reversed the revenue entries in favour of the petitioners' for the subject property only because of the sale deed without examining the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court dated 16.04.2007. Therefore, it was opined that the revenue authorities could not have passed the order impugned without examining whether the revenue entry in Khata No.86 related to the property that measures 40 feet x 60 feet or 30 feet x 35 feet, in the light of the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2007. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and reserved the liberty to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18596-DB WA No. 916 of 2025 petitioner to file a certified copy of the order with the respondent No.2 for making the necessary amendment in the revenue entries for the subject property No.86. 6. We find no error in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge inasmuch as the in the civil suit, the rights of the parties in respect of the land measuring East to West - 30 feet and North to South- 30 feet in khata No.86 have already been decided. With the aforesaid observation, we dismiss the writ appeal. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20 ct-vn