Karnataka High Court
Sri. C. Marigangaiah vs Sri. Gangabasavaiah on 24 September, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:38624-DB
WA No. 607 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
WRIT APPEAL NO. 607 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI C. MARIGANGAIAH,
S/O LATE CHIKKABASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS,
R/AT NO.32, BASAVESHWARA NILAYA,
MAGADI MAIN ROAD, 3RD MAIN, 2ND A CROSS,
SUNKADAKATTE, BANGALORE-560 091.
...APPELLANT
(BY MR. YASHWANTH NETHAJI.N.T, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI K V NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SRI GANGABASAVAIAH,
Digitally signed S/O LATE BASAVAIAH,
by NANDINI R
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF 2. SRI REVANNA SIDDAIAH,
KARNATAKA S/O LATE BASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT NESEPALYA,
HAMLET OF UDUVEGERE VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561 201.
SRI MARIBASAVAIAH,
S/O LATE NINGAIAH,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.RS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:38624-DB
WA No. 607 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. SRI SHIVAMMA,
W/O CHINNAGEERAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
R/AT MAADBAL HOBLI, MAADBAL,
MAGADI TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561 201.
4. SRI M. BASAVARAJU,
S/O. LATE MARIBASAVAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
UDUVEGERE VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561 201.
5. SMT. KEMPAMMA,
W/O. GANGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
R/AT NASEPALYA, MAADBAL HOBLI,
MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-561 201.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA DIVISION,
RAMANAGARA-562 159.
7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
RAMANAGARA DIVISION,
RAMANAGARA-562 159.
8. THE TAHSILDAR,
MAGADI TALUK, MAGADI-562 120.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. ARCHANA T.V, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI T.N VISWANATHA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1;
SRI K.S HARISH, G.A FOR R-6 TO 8)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO A. ALLOW THIS APPEAL AND SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WP No. 20485/2014 DATED 10.03.2025 B. GRANT SUCH OTHER AND
FURTHER RELIEFs AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:38624-DB
WA No. 607 of 2025
HC-KAR
PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an
order dated 10.03.2025 [impugned order] passed by the learned
Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.20485/2014.
2. The appellant had filed the said petition challenging an order
dated 30.11.2007 passed by respondent No.7 [the Assistant
Commissioner, Ramanagara] as well as the order dated
24.10.2013 passed in the revision petition by respondent No.6
[the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara].
3. The appellant sought to assail the change in the mutation
entries that were effected in the land records on 24.06.2005.
Admittedly, the appellant had not challenged the said mutation
entries. However, respondent No.3 had filed an appeal before
NC: 2025:KHC:38624-DB
HC-KAR
respondent No.7, which came to be dismissed by an order dated
30.11.2007. He preferred a revision petition, which was dismissed
on 24.10.2013. The appellant had filed an application for
impleadment in the revision petition, which was rejected.
4. The learned Single Judge had declined to entertain the writ
petition on the ground that the petitioner had not challenged the
initial mutation entries and the order dated 24.10.2013, which was
passed in the revision petition that arose from the appeal
proceedings initiated by respondent No. 3 which were rejected.
5. Respondent No.3 had not preferred any petition questioning
the rejection of the revision petition. In the aforesaid circumstances,
the learned Single Judge concurred with the decision of the
Revisional Authority that the appellant had no rights in respect of
the subject property, it would be open for him to approach the Civil
Court to secure a declaratory decree.
6. We find no grounds to interfere with the said decision.
Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
NC: 2025:KHC:38624-DB
HC-KAR
7. It is needless to say that if the appellant prefers any remedy,
he is at liberty to seek an exclusion of the period spent in pursuing
the other proceedings.
8. Pending application is disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C M JOSHI)
JUDGE
tsn*
