- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010123262026 NC: 2026:KHC:46481 WP No. 5636 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 5636 OF 2026 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. LALITHAMBA D/O. LATE. MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT MULLUR VILLGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560 087. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHRUVA KUMARA D. N., ADV.) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK. BENGALURU - 560 087. 4. SRI. VENKATESH, S/O. LATE NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010123262026 NC: 2026:KHC:46481 WP No. 5636 of 2026 5. SMT.MAHALAKSHMI, W/O. VENKATESH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.4 AND 5 ARE R/AT NO.87, HAROHALLI HUSKUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU-560 078. 6. SMT. JAYAMMA, W/O LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT MULLUR VILLAGE, VARTHUR HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU-560087. 7. SMT. RAJANI PILLAI, W/O M.S. RAM, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, 8. SRI. M.S. RAM, S/O MATHEVAN PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESPONDENTS NO.7 AND 8 ARE R/AT NO.82, 16TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN, SECTOR-IV, HSR LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, IS PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 31.07.2025 IN CASE NO. R.P NO. 22/2024 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE DC, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 AUTHORITY DATED 30.06.2016 IN RA(BE)176/2014-15 ANNX-B AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010123262026 NC: 2026:KHC:46481 WP No. 5636 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Learned counsel Sri.Shrikanta Sharma appears for respondent No.5/Caveator. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 31.07.2025 in R.P.No.22/2024 passed by the respondent No.1 (Annexure-A). 3. Learned counsel Sri.H.C.Shivaramu appearing on behalf of Sri.D.N.Dhruv Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner, Bengaluru North Sub-Division at Bengaluru submitted that, the illegal entry has been made in respect of the subject land in the name of the private respondents herein and the private respondents herein have created bogus documents and therefore submitted that, respondent No.1 has committed an error in - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010123262026 NC: 2026:KHC:46481 WP No. 5636 of 2026 interfering with the well-reasoned order passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B. Accordingly, learned counsel sought for interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, Sri.Shrikanta Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submitted that the land in question has been converted way back in 2013 and therefore, the said aspect of the matter was not considered by respondent No.2. Accordingly, learned counsel sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Learned HCGP Sri.Spoorthy Hegde.N., justified the impugned order and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. In the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and on careful consideration of the impugned order would indicate that the disputed question of facts are involved in this petition, wherein the arguments advanced by learned counsel for - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010123262026 NC: 2026:KHC:46481 WP No. 5636 of 2026 the petitioner is that the records have been created to grab the land by the private respondents. 7. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that the land in question has been converted way back on 22.02.2013, I am of the view that no interference has been called for by this Court in the present writ petition. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to establish her right over the property before the competent Civil Court in a manner known to law. 8. Accordingly, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16