- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010430342014 NC: 2026:KHC:42202 WP No. 58227 of 2014 C/W WP No. 2430 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 58227 OF 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 2430 OF 2015 (KLR-RES) IN WP No. 58227/2014 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MASTAMMA W/O MARAPPA @ MARAIAH, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 1(a). SRI. MAHIMANNA S/O LATE MASTAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 1(b). SRI. MAHADEVAIAH S/O LATE MASTAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT OBANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H.S. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010430342014 NC: 2026:KHC:42202 WP No. 58227 of 2014 C/W WP No. 2430 of 2015 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALROE RURAL DISTRICT, PODIUM BLOCK, BENGALURU -560 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 5. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAMMA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.41/1, JAIN TEMPLE ROAD, V.V. PURAM BANGALORE, REP BY HER GPA HOLDER, SRI MANGALAMURTHY, S/O THIMMAIAH, KULUMEKEMPANAHALLI, SONDEKOPPA POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 6. KEMPANNA W/O LATE ERADHIMMAIAH, SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010430342014 NC: 2026:KHC:42202 WP No. 58227 of 2014 C/W WP No. 2430 of 2015 6(a). GOVINDARAJU, S/O KEMPAMMA & ERADHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 6(b). MAHIMANNA S/O KEMPAMMA & ERADHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 6(c). CHANNAPPA S/O KEMPAMMA & ERADHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 6(a) TO 6(c) ARE R/AT OBANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALAUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SIDDAPPA V.D., ADVOCATE FOR R5; R6(a TO c) SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE-A ORDER DATED 02.12.2014 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 - DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU IN REVISION PETITION NO.128/2008-09 AND QUASH ANNEXURE-B DATED 29.11.2008 PASSED IN RA(NE) 62/2006-07 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 - ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.5/2 MEASURING 2 ACRES 4 GUNTAS OUT OF 4 ACRES 7 GUNTAS OF OBANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010430342014 NC: 2026:KHC:42202 WP No. 58227 of 2014 C/W WP No. 2430 of 2015 IN WP NO. 2430/2015 BETWEEN: 1. GOVINDRARAJU S/O KEMPAMMA AND ERADHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS. 2. MAHIMANNA, S/O KEMPAMMA AND ERADHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS. 3. CHANNAPPA, S/O KEMPAMMA AND ERADHIMMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS. ALL ARE R/AT OBANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHANKAR G., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT MS BUILDING, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PODIUM BLOCK, BENGALURU -560 001. - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010430342014 NC: 2026:KHC:42202 WP No. 58227 of 2014 C/W WP No. 2430 of 2015 3. THE ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA DIVISION, DODDABALAPURA, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 4. THE TAHSILDAR NELAMANGALA TALUK, NELAMANGALA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 5. SMT. DHANALAKSHMI D/O LATE MUNIVENKATAMMA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NO.41/1, JAIN TEMPLE ROAD, V.V. PURAM BANGALORE, REP BY HER GPA HOLDER, SRI MANGALAMURTHY, S/O THIMMAIAH, KULUMEKEMPANAHALLI, SONDEKOPPA POST, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT. 6. SMT. MASTAMMA W/O MARAPPA @ MARAIAH, SINCE DECEASED REP. BY LRS. 6(a). SRI. MAHIMANNA S/O LATE MASTAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 6(b). SRI. MAHADEVAIAH S/O LATE MASTAMMA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT OBANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010430342014 NC: 2026:KHC:42202 WP No. 58227 of 2014 C/W WP No. 2430 of 2015 KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALROE RURAL DISTRICT-562 123. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SIDDAPPA V.D., ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. H.S. SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE FOR R6(a & b) ) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.12.2014 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN REVISION PETITION NO. 128/2008-09 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.11.2008 PASSED IN RA[NE] 62/2006-07 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO. 5/2 MEASURING 2 ACRES 3 GUNTAS OUT OF 4 ACRES 7 GUNTAS OF OBANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT VIDE ANNEXURE -B. THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, E.S. INDIRESH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH CAV ORDER In these writ petitions, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 02.12.2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, in Revision Petition No.128/2008-09 and order dated 29.11.2008 in RA No.62/2006-07 passed by the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010430342014 NC: 2026:KHC:42202 WP No. 58227 of 2014 C/W WP No. 2430 of 2015 Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division, in respect of subject land. 2. Relevant facts for the adjudication of these writ petitions are that, the petitioners claim to be the owner in possession of the land bearing Sy.No.5/2, measuring 04 acres, 07 guntas, situate at Obanayakanahalli village, Nelamanagala Taluk. It is stated that, originally the land in question belongs to Gangappa and Govindaiah and they have mortgaged the schedule property to one Mahimanna, as per registered Mortgage Deed dated 01.03.1952. The mortgagors failed to discharge the mortgage within the stipulated period of one year, in the meanwhile, gangappa had sold 02 acres, 4 guntas, in Sy.No.5/2 of Obanayakanahalli village, in favour of Govindaiah through registered Sale Deed dated 09.03.1964. The said Govindaiah sold the land in favour of Marappa @ - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010430342014 NC: 2026:KHC:42202 WP No. 58227 of 2014 C/W WP No. 2430 of 2015 Maraiah (father of the petitioners in W.P.No.58227 of 2014) and Eradhimmaiah (father of the petitioner in W.P.No.2430 of 2015). In respect of the land bearing Sy.No. 5/2 measuirng 04 acres, 07 guntas of Obanayakanahalli village, it is pleaded that, though the Marappa @ Maraiah and Eradhimmaiah, were the absolute owners of the land in question, however, name of Mahimanna was reflected in the RTC extracts in respect of subject land for the year 1968 to 1988 and further, name of Mastamma and Eradhimaiah was reflected in respect of the RTC extracts from 1988 to 1993. It is further stated that, name of Mahimanna was continued to be in the RTC extracts till 2003-04. It is further stated that, one Munivekatamma has challenged the mutation, in IHC14-1989-90 before the respondent No.4, the respondent No.4 rejected the same. Being aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of Munivenkatamma-Dhanalakshmi - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010430342014 NC: 2026:KHC:42202 WP No. 58227 of 2014 C/W WP No. 2430 of 2015 challenged the order of the Tahsildar before respondent No.3, in RA No. 62-2006-07. The respondent No.3 by order dated 29.11.2008 (Annexure- B) allowed the appeal, and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed Revenue Petition No.128/2008-09 before the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2, after considering the material on record by order dated 02.12.2014 (Annexure-A), dismissed the petition and being aggrieved by the same, the legal representatives of Marappa @ Maraiah and Eradhimaiah have presented this writ petitions. 3. I have Heard Sri. H S Santhosh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W P No. 58227 of 2014 and respondent No. 6 (A) and (B) in W P No.2430 of 2015; Sri. Shankar G, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W P No. 2430 of 2015; - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010430342014 NC: 2026:KHC:42202 WP No. 58227 of 2014 C/W WP No. 2430 of 2015 Smt. B P Radha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent- State; Sri. Siddappa V D, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, as per the registered Mortgage Deed dated 01.03.1952 Mahimanna was in enjoyment of land in question and thereafter, mortgage was redeemed on 01.03.1964 and on the very same day Gangappa has executed registered Sale Deed in favour of Govindaiah and as such, the said Govindaiah became the owner of the entire extent of land in Survey No.5/2 of Obanayakanahalli and on the very same day, the said Govindaiah sold the land in favour of Marappa @ Maraiah and Eradhimaiah. Therefore, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that, the claim made by the Munivenkatamma was rightly rejected by - 11 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010430342014 NC: 2026:KHC:42202 WP No. 58227 of 2014 C/W WP No. 2430 of 2015 the Tahsildar, however, the said aspect of the matter was not considered by the respondent-authorities while passing impugned orders and therefore, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners sought for interference of this court. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, the mutation made in favour of the Marappa @ Maraiah and Eradhimaiah was questioned by said Munivenkatamma, after lapse of 17 years and therefore, submitted that the impugned orders passed by respondent-authorities is contrary to law and accordingly, sought for interference by this court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent No.5 submitted that, the land in question is Inam land and order of re-grant dated 11.07.1966 in Case No.44 of 1960-61 in favour of said - 12 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010430342014 NC: 2026:KHC:42202 WP No. 58227 of 2014 C/W WP No. 2430 of 2015 Munivenkatamma and therefore, as the re-grant order has been made by competent authority and therefore the mutation has been made in favour of said Munivenkatamma (mother of respondent No.5- Dhanalakshmi) and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that the impugned orders passed by respondents-authorities are just and proper. Accordingly, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 sought for dismissal of the writ petitions. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent- State submitted that, the impugned orders passed by respondent - authorities are just and proper and accordingly, sought for dismissal of writ petitions. 8. The claim made by the petitioners is based on registered Sale Deed 10.03.1964 said to have been - 13 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010430342014 NC: 2026:KHC:42202 WP No. 58227 of 2014 C/W WP No. 2430 of 2015 executed by Gangappa in favour of Govindaiah and in turn Govindaiah had sold to legal heirs of Mahimanna (Maraiah and Eradimaiah). It is the case of the petitioners that the land was mortgaged to Mahimanna on 01.03.1952, however, the petitioners have not produced any material to establish as to redemption of mortgage. On the other hand, as per the proceedings before Special Deputy Commissioner in Case No. 44/1960-61, dated 11.07.1966 land in question was re-granted in favour of Munivenkatamma and therefore, the finding recorded by both the respondent-authorities are just and proper and do not call for interference in this writ petition. 9. It is also to be noted that, no document has been produced by the petitioners to establish their right in respect of land in question, particularly, though admitted about execution of mortgage deed, - 14 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010430342014 NC: 2026:KHC:42202 WP No. 58227 of 2014 C/W WP No. 2430 of 2015 however, no documents have been produced as to the redemption of mortgage, and therefore as the contesting respondent No.5, is claiming the right over the land in question based on the re-grant order passed by the competent authority in Case No. 44/1960-61, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in these writ petitions, as there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by respondent-authorities. In the result writ petitions are rejected. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE SB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75