- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010506712026 NC: 2026:KHC:42778 WP No. 23023 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 23023 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI KUMARANAYAK S/O. LATE BASAVANAYAK, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT KAMARAHALLIVILLAGE, ILAVALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571130. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. BHUVAN K.P.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MYSURU SUB DIVISION, MYSURU- 570001. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010506712026 NC: 2026:KHC:42778 WP No. 23023 of 2026 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU-570001. 5. SMT. SAKAMMA, W/O. LATE PUTTAIAH, AGE MAJOR. 6. SRI. DEVARASA, S/O. LATE PUTTAIAH AGE MAJOR. 7. SRI. MARIDEVA, S/O. LATE PUTTAIAH, AGE MAJOR. R(5) TO (7) ARE R/O. KANNAHALLI VILLAGE, MUGURU HOBLI, T. NARASIPURA TALUK. 8. SRI. PUTTASWAMY S/O. ANCHIGAIAH, AGE MAJOR. 9. SRI. ANNAPPA S/O. LATE ANCHIGAIAH, AGE MAJOR. 10. SRI. BASAVARAJU, S/O. LATE ANCHIGAIAH, AGE MAJOR. 11. SRI. DEVARASA, S/O. LATE ANCHIGAIAH, AGE MAJOR. R(8) TO (11) ARE R/O. DASANAKOPPALU VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010506712026 NC: 2026:KHC:42778 WP No. 23023 of 2026 12. SMT. CHAMUNDAMMA, W/O. LATE BASAVARAJANAYAK, AGE MAJOR. 13. SRI. KRISHNA, S/O. BASAVARAJANAYAK, AGE MAJOR. 14. SRI. SWAMYNAYAKA, S/O. BASAVARAJANAYAK, AGE MAJOR. 15. MADHAVI D/O. BASAVARAJANAYAK, AGE MAJOR. 16. SRI. MAHADEVA, S/O. BASAVARAJANAYAK, AGE MAJOR. 17. SRI. BASAVARAJU, S/O. BASAVARAJANAYAK, AGE MAJOR. 18. SRI. MAHADEVANAYAKA, S/O. KARINAYAKA, AGE MAJOR. 19. SRI. SIDDANAYAKA, S/O. KARINAYAKA, AGE MAJOR. 20. SMT. SHIVAMMA, W/O. LATE BASAVARAJANAYAK, AGE MAJOR. 21. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI, D/O. LATE BASAVARAJANAYAK, AGE MAJOR. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010506712026 NC: 2026:KHC:42778 WP No. 23023 of 2026 22. SRI. PRADEEP, S/O. LATE BASAVARAJANAYAK, AGE MAJOR. 23. SRI. SAMPATH KUMAR, S/O. LATE BASAVARAJANAYAK, AGE MAJOR. 24. BHAGEERATHI B D/O. LATE BASAVARAJANAYAK, AGE MAJOR. 25. SMT. ERAMMA W/O. CHIKKEGOWDA AGE MAJOR. 26. SRI. KALEGOWDA S/O. LATE KALEGOWDA, AGE MAJOR. R(12) TO (26) ARE R/O. KAMARAHALLI VILLAGE, ILAVALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK.- 571130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GIRISH KUMAR B M, ADVOCATE FOR R5 TO R10) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2025 IN RP/246/2025 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND THEREBY ALLOW THE R.P./246/2025 FILED BY THE PETITIONER(B) SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 19.05.2025 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT- ASSITANT COMMISSIONER, MUYSURU SUB DIVISION, IN RA.616/202, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-EP - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010506712026 NC: 2026:KHC:42778 WP No. 23023 of 2026 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 In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 12.11.2025 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2 and order dated 19.05.2025 (Annexure- E) passed by the respondent No.3. 2. It is contended by Sri Bhuvan K P, learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is claiming right over the property based on the registered sale deed dated 02.11.1950, and therefore, both the authorities have failed to consider the fact that, there is a delay in challenging the mutation entry made in favour of the petitioner, and therefore, sought for interference of this Court. 3. Per contra, Sri Girish Kumar B M, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.5 to 10, submitted that the land in question claimed by the petitioner is in Sy. No.74. However, a suit is filed by the - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010506712026 NC: 2026:KHC:42778 WP No. 23023 of 2026 petitioner in OS No.588/2026 before the competent Civil Court at Mysore, referring to the scheduled property as Sy.No.74/5. The learned counsel for respondents No.5 to 10 submitted that there is no perversity in the orders passed by the respondents No.2 and 3 in the impugned orders and accordingly, sought for dismissal of writ petition. 4. In light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and on careful consideration of the impugned orders would indicate that there is a discrepancy insofar as the alleged sale deed referred to by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is forthcoming from the prayer made in OS No.588/2026 before the competent Civil Court at Mysore that the petitioner has sought for rectification of the sale deed dated 02.11.1950. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this petition. - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010506712026 NC: 2026:KHC:42778 WP No. 23023 of 2026 Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioner to approach the revenue authorities after the conclusion of the proceedings before the competent Civil Court. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18