- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010567552026 NC: 2026:KHC:44920 WP No. 25681 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 25681 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHIKKAMUNIYAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKAYBYCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS R/AT KENDATTI VILLAGE VAKKALERI HOBLI KOLAR TALUK - 563 133. 2. SRI ILIYAZ PASHA S/O LATE ABDUL KHAN AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT #E223A, NAGAVARA MAIN ROAD 10TH MAIN, 13TH MAIN ROAD, HBR 5TH BLOCK BENGALURU - 560 045. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUIDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOLAR DISTRICT, Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010567552026 NC: 2026:KHC:44920 WP No. 25681 of 2026 KOLAR - 563 101. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION, KOLAR - 563 101. 4. TAHSILDAR KOLAR TALUK, KOLAR - 563 101. 5. SRI. K.N. LAKSMIPATHI S/O LATE K.V. NARAYANAPPA AGED MAJOR #157/2, OLD POLICE STATION ROAD, K.R. PURAM, BENGALURU - 560 036. NOTE:(THE RESPONDENTS IN R.A.NO.423/2024 HAVE CHALLENGED THE ORDERS SEPARATELY IN RESPECT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES AND ARE THEREFORE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES TO THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA R1 TO R4; SRI. ABHISHEK K., ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.07.2026 PASSED IN RP NO.534/2025 BY THE R2- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010567552026 NC: 2026:KHC:44920 WP No. 25681 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In the writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 14.07.2026 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 09.09.2025 (Annexure-B) passed by respondent No.3, inter alia, sought for direction to the respondent-authorities to restore the mutation entries as per Annexure-C in favour of the petitioners. 2. Heard Sri. Sampath A., learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. B.P. Radha, AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri. Abhishek K., learned counsel for respondent No.5/Caveator. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that respondent No.5 is claiming a right over the property based on the re-grant order dated 21.09.1979, whereas the petitioners are also claiming a right over the property based on the grant order dated - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010567552026 NC: 2026:KHC:44920 WP No. 25681 of 2026 24.03.1983, as per Annexure-C. Therefore, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that, as there are two grant orders passed by the respondent- authorities in respect of the very same subject land and as the mutation has been effected in favour of the petitioners and has continued for more than two decades, the interference made by the respondent-authorities is incorrect. Accordingly, sought for setting aside the impugned orders. 4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the grant made in favour of respondent No.5 was on 21.09.1979. However, a subsequent grant has been made in favour of the petitioners and accordingly, refuted the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon careful consideration of the writ papers, it is forthcoming that, as - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010567552026 NC: 2026:KHC:44920 WP No. 25681 of 2026 per the grant order dated 21.09.1979 in INA No.87/1978- 79, the land in question was granted in favour of the father of respondent No.5. However, perusal of the records would indicate that the petitioners herein have not produced the order of grant said to have been made on 24.03.1983 before the respondent-authorities. 6. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, as respondent No.5 is claiming a right over the land based on the order of grant dated 21.09.1979, no interference is called for in this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is open for the petitioners to establish their right in respect of the subject land in a manner known to law. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36