- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458712025 NC: 2026:KHC:52546 WP No. 21315 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 21315 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. C. ESHWARA REDDY, S/O LATE CHOWDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. SRI. C. CHANDRA REDDY, S/O LATE CHOWDA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/AT LAKSHMINARAYANAPURA VILLAGE, HUSKURU POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 099. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI.VENKATESH P. DALWAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 009. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458712025 NC: 2026:KHC:52546 WP No. 21315 of 2025 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 022. 3. THE TAHSILDAR, BENGALURU - ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU - 562 106. 4. REVENUE INSPECTOR, HUSKUR CIRCLE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 560 099. 5. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, HUSKUR CIRCLE, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK - 560 099. 6. R. VIVEKANANDA, S/O S.S. RUDRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/AT 1ST FLOOR, SKPT ROAD, TIPTUR, TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 201. 7. SMT. SARASAMMA, W/O LATE RAJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT GOOLIMANGALA VILLAGE, HUSKUR POST, SARJAPURA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK, BENGALURU DISTRICT - 560 099. 8. SRI. BALAJI TAMMINA, S/O KRISHNAMURTHY, - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458712025 NC: 2026:KHC:52546 WP No. 21315 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AY FLAT NO.401, 5TH FLOOR, COMFORT CASTLE, BEHIND GANESHA TEMPLE, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 075. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI.AKKI MANJUNATH GOWDA K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R6) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.04.2025 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN CASE NO. PRP 346/2021 (ANNX-A); RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2021 PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE NO.RA(A)219/2012- 13 (ANNX-B) 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 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing order dated 04.04.2025 passed by respondent No.1 at - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458712025 NC: 2026:KHC:52546 WP No. 21315 of 2025 Annexure - A and sought for restoration of order dated 09.08.2021 passed by respondent No.2 at Annexure - B. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are claiming right over the property based on the Sale deed dated 26.08.1967 at Annexure - C. Further, the names of the predecessors of the petitioners were reflected in the RTC extracts from 1969 upto 1986. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 is contrary to the judgment of this Court in the case of Syed Bhasheer Ahamed and Others v. State of Karnataka and Others reported in AIR 1994 Karnataka 227. 4. Further, learned counsel submitted that as the petitioners are claiming right over the property based on registered sale deed and also it is not in question that the re- grant order has been made in favour of the petitioners on 31.03.1978 and therefore it is submitted that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 requires interference. It is also argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that respondent No.1 has ignored the factual - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458712025 NC: 2026:KHC:52546 WP No. 21315 of 2025 aspects on record as the petitioner had acquired the property by way of registered sale deed, as well as the order passed by the competent authority under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act, 1953. Therefore, the learned counsel sought for interference. 5. Per contra, Sri Akki Manjunath Gowda K., learned counsel appearing for caveator/ respondent No.6, referred to the suit in OS No.15/2022 pending before the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Anekal, wherein the petitioners are required to establish their right over the property in the pending suit. Further, he contended that respondent No.6 is claiming right over the property based on the registered sale deed dated 02.03.2019 and therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 requires to be confirmed. 6. The learned AGA also sought to justify the impugned order. 7. In that view of the matter, though the petitioners herein are claiming right over the property based on the registered sale deed dated 26.08.1967 and the re-grant made - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458712025 NC: 2026:KHC:52546 WP No. 21315 of 2025 by the competent authority, the petitioners have slept over the matter for a Period of three decades and thereafter, approached the competent authority for change of entry in the mutation records. 8. In that view of the matter, though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Syed Bhasheer Ahamed (Supra), however, by looking into the language employed under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 as the entry in mutation has been made based on the registered sale dated 02.03.2019 in favour of respondent No.6. Therefore, I am of the view that the finding recorded by the respondent No.1 is just and proper and no interference is called for in this petition. However, it is made clear that the rights of the parties shall be subject to the result of the judgment and decree, that may be passed by the Civil Court in OS No.15/2022. 9. It is also to be noted that since the suit is pending consideration before the Civil Court, observations made by the revenue authorities as well as by this Court in the present - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010458712025 NC: 2026:KHC:52546 WP No. 21315 of 2025 order, does not influence the Trial Court in disposing of the suit, in accordance with law. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE LL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8