- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247392019 NC: 2026:KHC:49906 WP No. 32910 of 2019 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.32910 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. H.M. PRAKASH REDDY S/O H. MUNISHAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, RESIDING AT RENUKA NO.13 "JALA RAKUKA" MUNISHAMY REDDY LAYOUT POORNAPURA BENGALURU-560 054. 2. N. SRINIVASA SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY LRS. NOW RESIDING AT APOLLO GREENS NO.19 1ST MAIN ROAD, CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT DOMLUR BENGALURU-560 008 2(a). SMT. SUGUNA SRINIVAS W/O LATE N. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. 2(b). SRI. SACHIT SRINIVAS S/O LATE N. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247392019 NC: 2026:KHC:49906 WP No. 32910 of 2019 2(c). SRI. SAHIL SRINIVAS S/O LATE N. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS. PETITIONERS NO.2(a) TO 2(c) ARE R/AT APOLLO GREENS NO.19, 1ST MAIN ROAD CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT DOMLUR BENGALURU – 560 058. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. G.L. VISHWANATH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. MANASA B. RAO., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVANA K G ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHASILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK KANDYA BHAVAN K.G. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 009. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247392019 NC: 2026:KHC:49906 WP No. 32910 of 2019 4. SHIVADARSHAN BALSE S/O LATE RAMESH BALSE SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY LR. 4(a). SMT. GEETHA BALSE W/O LATE SHIVADARASHAN BALSE AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS 5. RAVINDRA BALSE S/O LATE B.S. BALSE SINCE DECEASED, REP. BY LRS. 5(a). MRS. PAULA BALSE W/O LATE RAVINDRA BALSE AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS R/AT GOODWIN COTTAGE 4 MOTE HALL VILLAS THE GREEN BEARSTED MAIDSTONE ME 14 4EB UNITED KINGDOM. 5(b). MRS. SARLA NEILSON MATTHEWMAN D/O LATE RAVINDRA BALSE AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT GOODWIN COTTAGE 4 MOTE HALL VILLAS THE GREEN BEARSTED MAIDSTONE ME 14 4EB UNITED KINGDOM. 5(c). MRS. PREETHA FRANCES EXCELL D/O LATE RAVINDRA BALSE AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT 5, HARBOROUGH ROAD BILLESDON, LIECESTER LE 7 9EL, UNITED KINGDOM. - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247392019 NC: 2026:KHC:49906 WP No. 32910 of 2019 6. SMT. MANORAMA GANGOLI D/O LATE DR. B.S. BALSE AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS. 7. SMT. SUDHA BALSE W/O LATE RAMESH BALSE AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS. 8. SRI. PRASANNA MUNDKUR S/O LATE RAMESH BALSE AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS. 9. SMT. RANJAN S. HATTANGADI D/O LATE RAMESH BALSE AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS. 10. SMT. KANCHANA P. RAO D/O LATE RAMESH BALSE AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. 11. SMT. KALPANA HARIDAS D/O LATE RAMESH BALSE AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.4(a) & 6 TO 11 ARE RESIDING AT NO.48 7TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU-560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. S. SREEVATSA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. YUKTHA ANIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4(a), R5(a & b), R8, R10 & R11; R7 & R9 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED NOTICE TO R6 OR LRS OF R6 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 08.12.2023) - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247392019 NC: 2026:KHC:49906 WP No. 32910 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.01.2019 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN REVISION PETITION NO.184/2014- 15 ANNEXURE-N AND TO CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE MUTATION ENTRIES OF THE SUBJECT LANDS IN THE NAMES OF THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this Writ Petition, the petitioners are assailing the order dated 18.01.2019 in Revision Petition No.184/2014-15 (Annexure-N) passed by respondent No.1. 2. Heard Sri. G.L. Vishwanath, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Manasa B. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Shamanth Naik, learned Additional - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247392019 NC: 2026:KHC:49906 WP No. 32910 of 2019 Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. S. Sreevatsa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Yuktha Anil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4(a), 5(a & b), 8, 10 and 11. 3. Sri. G.L. Vishwanath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, invited the attention of the Court to the prayer made in the plaint in O.S.No.179/2009(Annexure-E), and submitted that the sale deed made in favour of the petitioners has been challenged by the private respondents herein, and thereafter the said suit came to be decreed by the Civil Court exparte on 09.04.2012 as per Annexure-F and pursuant to the same, revenue entries have been changed as per Annnexure-G in the name of the private respondents which is based on the Court order and thereafter, the petitioners have filed Misc.Petition No.72/2012 before the Civil Court challenging the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.179/2009 and private respondents herein have filed a memo stating that they have no objection to allow the suit and accordingly the suit in O.S.No.179/2009 was restored on file of the Trial Court. In that view of the matter, it is argued by the - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247392019 NC: 2026:KHC:49906 WP No. 32910 of 2019 learned Senior Counsel that as change of mutation has been made pursuant to the Judgment and Decree (Annexure-F), as the said Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court has been set aside in Misc.Petition No.72/2012 and suit is restored on file, and therefore, learned Senior Counsel sought for interference of this Court to restore the mutation entries in the name of the petitioners. 4. Per contra, Sri. S. Sreevatsa, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4(a), 5(a & b), 8, 10 and 11, referred to the Memo dated 18.06.2018(Annexure-J) filed in Misc.Petition No.72/2012 and submitted that the respondents therein have given no objection to revive the suit proceedings on the ground that status-quo order passed by the Court in the proceedings would be continued. Therefore, learned Senior Counsel contended that mutation entries changed in favour of the private respondents herein is just and proper and does not call for interference of this Court. 5. Sri. Shamanth Naik, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order dated - 8 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247392019 NC: 2026:KHC:49906 WP No. 32910 of 2019 18.01.2019 passed by respondent No.1 at Annexure-N to the Writ Petition. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that the private respondents herein have filed O.S.No.179/2009, wherein, the sale deeds executed in favour of the petitioners herein has been questioned by the respondents herein before the Trial Court. The perusal of the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.179/2009 dated 09.04.2012(Annexure-F) would indicate that the order is passed exparte. It is also to be noted that, immediately thereafter, the respondent-authorities based on the Judgment and Decree in the suit referred to above, have changed the mutation entries on 06.11.2012 (Annexure-G). 7. However, the petitioner herein has filed Misc.Petition No.72/2012 before the Trial Court assailing the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.179/2009 and the private respondents herein have filed a Memo stating that they have no objection to allow the Misc.Petition and to restore the suit before the Trial Court. Based on the said memo, the O.S.No.179/2009 was restored before the original Court. - 9 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247392019 NC: 2026:KHC:49906 WP No. 32910 of 2019 8. In that view of the matter, since the mutation entries have been made based on the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court as per Annexure-F and as the said Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court was set aside subsequently and the suit was restored on file, and therefore, I am of the view that whatever the entries made by the respondent-authorities effecting change in the RTC extracts pursuant to the Judgment and Decree dated 09.04.2012 in O.S. No.179/2012 (Annexure-F) is required to be restored in the name of the petitioners. In this regard, respondent No.2 has rightly passed the order on 21.08.2014 in R.A.(BN)No.143/2012-13(Annexure-L), however, the same was, on erroneous presumption of fact and law, interfered with by respondent No.1 in the impugned order, which requires to be set aside. 9. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. - 10 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010247392019 NC: 2026:KHC:49906 WP No. 32910 of 2019 (ii) The order dated 18.01.2019 in Revision Petition No.184/2014-15 (Annexure-N) passed by respondent No.1 is hereby set aside and respondent No.3 is directed to restore the mutation entries in respect of the subject land, in the name of the petitioners forthwith, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case in respect of the suit proceedings before the Trial Court. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52