- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1998 WP No. 36156 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.36156 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. ANNA MARIE PLANTATIONS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING OFFICE AT SIRAVASE VILLAGE JAGARA HOBLI CHIKAMANGALURU - 577 101 REP.BY ITS PARTNER MR.FRANCIS PASCAL SUBIR REBELLO &PETITIONER (BY SRI.SUNIL T.M., FOR SRI. ARUN GOVINDRAJ.,ADVOCATES) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU 3 560 001 REP.BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKMANGALURU TALUK CHIKMANGALURU-577 101 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKMANGALURU TALUK CHIKMANGALUR-577 101 4. THE TASHILDHAR CHIKMANGALURU TALUK CHIKMANGALURU-577 101. &RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SESHU.V .,HCGP) Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1998 WP No. 36156 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIOARARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH CONDITION NO.8 CONTAINED IN THE GRANT CERTIFICATES AT ANNEXURES-C1, C3, D1, E1 AND F, RESPECTIVELY, AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER The petitioner, who has purchased the lands in question on 15.04.1991, has filed this writ petition with a prayer that a direction could be issued to the respondent- authorities to quash condition No.8 contained in the Grant Certificates issued in the years 1973 and 1979 at Annexures-C1, C3, D1, E1 and F, respectively. 2. On the previous occasion, this Court had requested the learned Counsel for petitioners to go through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Guntaiah & Others Vs. Hambamma & Others, reported in AIR 2005 SC 4013 and make submissions. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1998 WP No. 36156 of 2025 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case of Guntaiah (supra) has clearly held that the restrictive covenant contained in the Grant Order is binding on the grantee. It was held that a third party is not entitled to say that the conditions imposed by the grantor on the grantee were void. In that view of the matter, this Court had requested the learned counsel to have his say having regard to the prayer made in the writ petition. 3. In view of the settled position of law that a third party has no locus standi to question the imposition of condition of non-alienation in the Grant Certificates, the prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE DL