- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4314-DB WA No. 1702 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH WRIT APPEAL NO. 1702 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. T.V.RUDRESHA S/O VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 2. SRI. T.V. JAGADISH S/O VEERANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT TIPPUR VILLAGE, YEDIYUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK , TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN CODE – 572 130. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. RAMESH B, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KUMAR S J, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRECARTY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT, TUMKUR – 572 101. 3. THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK, KUNIGAL PIN CODE – 572 130. Digitally signed by SREEDHARAN BANGALORE SUSHMA LAKSHMI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4314-DB WA No. 1702 of 2024 4. SRI. THIMMEGOWDA SON OF THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 5. SRI. LAXMAN SON OF THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 6. SRI. BETTASWAMY GOWDA SON OF LATE BEGURAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 7. SRI CHANNATHIMMAIAH SON OF LATE THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R4 TO R7 ARE RESIDING AT TIPPUR VILLAGE, YEDIYUR HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT PIN CODE – 572 130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M N SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1-R3; SRI. S R DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7; R4-R6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 14.10.2024, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN THE WP No.17804/2019, ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS, AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT AND ETC., THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4314-DB WA No. 1702 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) The present appeal has been filed impugning the judgment and order dated 14.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.17804/2019 filed by the appellants. 2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the writ court, for the sake of convenience. 3. The petitioners claim to be the owners of 2 acres 20 guntas of land in Survey No.4/6 of Vaderekatte Kaval Village, Yediyur Hobli, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District. The petitioners disputed the village map wherein 28 feet wide cart road, which runs through the property of the petitioners, was shown in the village map. The petitioners had moved an application before the revenue authorities for correction of the village map. On such application having been filed by the petitioners, the Additional Director of Land Records (for short ‘ADLR’) had - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4314-DB WA No. 1702 of 2024 inspected the site and prepared a report. The ADLR, on inspection, found that 28 feet wide cart road existed even prior to the independence and that continues to be in existence. The petitioners’ objection to the village map was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal on the basis of the report of the ADLR. These orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal were challenged by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge. 3(i) Learned Single Judge, having recorded the finding that, as per the report of the ADLR, a 28 feet wide cart road existed even prior to Independence, found that there was no error in the village map. The said road was used by the villagers to access their neighbouring properties as well as a connecting road. 3(ii) The contention of the petitioners that there is a metal road which is being used by the villagers and that a 28 feet wide cart road did not exist was not accepted. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4314-DB WA No. 1702 of 2024 4. The finding regarding the correctness of the village map is based on the spot inspection of the ADLR, who has categorically stated in his report that a 28 feet wide cart road has been existing since time immemorial which has been used by the villagers to access the neighbouring properties. It appears that the petitioners have assimilated the said road into their land. 5. Having considered that the question involved is a disputed question of fact and that the findings of the Deputy Commissioner and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal are based on the spot inspection report of the ADLR, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we dismiss the writ appeal. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants submits that liberty may be reserved to the appellants to approach the revenue authority for appropriate relief. The said liberty is reserved. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4314-DB WA No. 1702 of 2024 In view of the dismissal of the appeal, pending applications do not survive for consideration and the same are also disposed of. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (S RACHAIAH) JUDGE Bss List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16