- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010613162025 NC: 2026:KHC:46211 WP NO.28403 OF 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.28403 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. HARISH S. S/O G. SUBRAMANYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.25, 8TH CROSS, CUBBONPET, BENGALURU - 560 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 002. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. THE THASILDAR ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 105. 4. SMT. PAPAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANA REDDY, D/O LATE PILLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NO.828, ASHWATHAPPA BUILDING, DOWN BAZAR, B.B.ROAD, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010613162025 NC: 2026:KHC:46211 WP NO.28403 OF 2025 5. SMT. KAMALAMMA W/O LATE SURYA NARAYANA REDDY, D/O LATE PILLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT BILLUR VILLAGE HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT. 6. SMT. PRAMEELAMMA W/O LATE NAGA REDDY, D/O LATE PILLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.3514, 6TH NETHRAVATHI MAIN, CHOWDESHWARINAGARA, DEVARACHIKKANAHALLI, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SHRIRAM ADIGA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN CASE NO.RP/41/2024 DATED 18TH JULY, 2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 18th July, 2025 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1 in Case No.RP/41/2024. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010613162025 NC: 2026:KHC:46211 WP NO.28403 OF 2025 2. Heard Sri. K.N. Nitish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Sri. Spoorthy Hegde N., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3; and Sri. Shriram Adiga, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6. 3. Sri. Nitish K.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is claiming right over the property in question based on the registered Sale Deed dated 19th April, 2007 (Annexure-G) and on the other hand, respondents 4 to 6 claiming right over the same based on the order of grant. In this connection, learned counsel appearing of the petitioner, by referring to the proceedings in R.A.(A)No.46/2013-14 (Annexure-B) contended that the respondent No.2, after considering the material on record has rightly interfered with the mutation entries made in favour of the respondents 4 to 6 herein, however, same has been erroneously interfered with by the respondent No.1 in the impugned order dated 18th July, 2025 (Annexure-A) passed in Case No.RP/41/2024. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010613162025 NC: 2026:KHC:46211 WP NO.28403 OF 2025 4. Per contra, Sri. Shriram Adiga, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 6 supports the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 and submits that the respondents 4 to 6 are claiming right over the property in question as Khadim Tenant as per the Re-grant order dated 22nd October, 1958. Accordingly, he sought for dismissal of the petition. 5. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel appearing for parties, on careful perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it is forthcoming that the petitioner is claiming right over the property in question based on the registered Sale Deed dated 19th April, 2007 (Annexure- G). On the other hand, the respondents 4 to 6 are claiming right over the same based on the order of Re-grant dated 22nd October, 1958. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the said Re-grant order has not come into light for long time, the respondent No.2, after considering the entire material on record, had rightly interfered with the mutation registered in favour of respondents 4 to 6 in R.A.(A)No.46/2013-14 dated 03rd June, 2016. However, the respondent No.1, by the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010613162025 NC: 2026:KHC:46211 WP NO.28403 OF 2025 impugned order dated 18th July, 2025 (Annexure-A) had erroneously interfered with the order passed by the respondent No.2, without considering the factual aspects on record that the petitioner is claiming right over the property in question based on the registered Sale Deed dated 19th April, 2007 (Annexure- G). In that view of the matter, I am of the view that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition allowed; (ii) Order dated 18th July, 2025 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.1 in Case No.RP/41/2024 is hereby set-aside; consequently, order dated 03rd June, 2016 (Annexure-B) passed by the respondent No.2 in R.A.(A)No.46/2013-14 is confirmed. SD/- (E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20