- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010068652012 NC: 2026:KHC:54524 WP No. 47251 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.47251 OF 2012 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SAVITHRAMMA W/O G S BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/AT 6TH CROSS SUBHASHNAGAR MANDYA CITY MANDYA – 574101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHENDRA GOWDA C.R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 574 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA - 574 101. 3. THE THASILDAR MANDYA TALUK MANDYA - 574 101. Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010068652012 NC: 2026:KHC:54524 WP No. 47251 of 2012 4. SRI. KALABYRESHWARASWAMY EDUCATION SAMITHI HULIVANAKEREGODU HOBLI MANDYA TALUK - 574 101 BY ITS SECRETARY SRI H P CHANDRASHEKAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-C, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, THASILDAR, IN LRP NO.19/88-89 DATED 26.8.1992; 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 1. In this Writ Petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 26.08.1992 in LRP No.19/88-89(Annexure-C), passed by respondent No.3, the order dated 31.03.2009 in R.A.No45/2006-2007(Annexure-D) passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 11.06.2012 in R.A.No.25/2009(Annexure- E), passed by respondent No.1. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010068652012 NC: 2026:KHC:54524 WP No. 47251 of 2012 2. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on careful consideration of the impugned orders, would indicate that the respondent – Institution is claiming right over the land in question based on the registered sale deed dated 06.02.1976, having purchased the same from Mysore Sugar Company and thereafter, the respondent – authorities have conducted durust in respect of the land in question. 3. In that view of the matter, I am of the view that, the finding recorded by the respondent – authorities is just and proper and no interference is called for in this Writ Petition. However, it is open for the petitioner to establish right over the land in question before the Civil Court as third party rights have already been created over the land in question. 4. With the above observation, the Writ Petition is dismissed. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1