- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010434292022 NC: 2026:KHC:49734 WP No. 18931 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 18931 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT CHANDRAMMA W/O PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC HH WORK. 2. SRI SATISH, S/O PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS. 3. SMT.JYOTHI D/O PUTTARAJU AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS OCC: HH WORK. 4. SRI KUMARA S/O APPAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS OCC AGRL. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SHIVAYOGESHA SHIVAYOGIMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT.RATNA N SHIVAYOGIMATH., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010434292022 NC: 2026:KHC:49734 WP No. 18931 of 2022 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M S BUILDING, BENGALURU -1. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU, DIST: MYSURU -570001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB DIVISION HUNSUR, DIST MYSURU -571105. 4. THE TAHSILDAR H D KOTE, TQ: H D KOTE DIST: MYSURU -571114. 5. SRI NANJAIAH S/O TATANAHALLI NANJAIAH R/O BHEEMANAHALLI VILLAGE TQ: H D KOTE, DIST: MYSURU -571114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA, FOR R1 TO R4, SRI H MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.06.2022 IN NO.HKDKSPT 137/1979-80 PASSED BY THE R3 VIDE ANNEXURE- J.DIRECTING THE R3 AND R4 TO RESTORE THE REVENUE ENTRIES IN NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN RESPECT OF (SY.NO.1/10) NEW SY.NO.21/1 SITUATED AT YELEHUNDIKAVAL VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, TQ HD KOTE, DIST, MYSURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN `B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010434292022 NC: 2026:KHC:49734 WP No. 18931 of 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER In this petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 16.06.2022 (Annexure-J) passed by respondent No.3, inter alia, seeking a direction to respondents No.3 and 4 to restore the revenue entries in the name of the petitioners. 2. Sri Shivayogesha Shivayogimath, learned counsel for the petitioners contended, by referring to the order dated 16.12.1988 passed by this Court in WP No.14020/1985 (Annexure-D), that, this Court has given a benefit to the petitioners as to construction made in the property, and also to harvest the crop raised therein. He, therefore, submitted that the said aspect of the matter has not been considered by respondent No.3 while passing the impugned order. 3. Per contra, Sri H Mohan Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 submitted that, the - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010434292022 NC: 2026:KHC:49734 WP No. 18931 of 2022 respondent No.5 is the original grantee, and has succeeded before this Court in the aforementioned writ petition, and respondent No.3 has implemented the order passed by this Court (Annexure-D), and therefore, sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to 4 justifies the impugned order. 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, the father of petitioner No.4 herein has filed WP No.14020/1985 and this Court by order dated 14.11.1988 (Annexure-C) dismissed the writ petition, and thereafter, this Court by order dated 16.12.1988 on IA No.2, has directed the respondent - Authorities to draw mahazar as to any improvement has been made by the petitioners and also allow them to harvest the standing crop in the land in question as well as any dwelling house - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010434292022 NC: 2026:KHC:49734 WP No. 18931 of 2022 situated in the land in question. Pursuant to the same, the respondent No.5 has approached the respondent - Authorities and thereby, following the proceedings in PTCL 03/1984-85 dated 30.08.1985 passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the order passed by this Court at Annexures - C and D, respondent No.3 has passed the impugned order dated 16.06.2022 at Annexure-J, and therefore, I am of the view that, no interference is called for in this writ petition as the respondent No.3 has implemented the order passed by this Court. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed. Pending IA's, if any, are disposed of accordingly. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE BKM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55