Siddaraju vs the State of Karnataka

Siddaraju vs The State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Jul 03, 2025

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1766906

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1766906
Court: Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge: E.S.Indiresh
Decided On: Jul 03, 2025
Case Number: WP/25328/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Siddaraju

Respondent

The State of Karnataka

Excerpt

.....passed by the r2 which is filed as annexure - a to the writ petition and etc., this petition, coming on for preliminary hearing in 'b' group, this day, order was made therein as under: coram: hon'ble mr. justice e.s.indireshoral orderheard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.2. in this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 25.01.2022 (annexure-a) in r.p.no.52 of 2021 on the file of respondent no.2.3. having taken note of the submission made bythe learned counsel appearing for the parties, the finding recorded by the respondent authorities would indicate that, the application has been filed challenging the mutation entries after 38 years. -4-4. in that view of the matter, the respondentno.2 has arrived at a conclusion that as disputed question of facts are involved in so far as the title to the land in question property and as such, directed the parties to establish their right before the civil court. in that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that, the petitioner herein has to establish his right in so far as the schedule properties are concerned, i do not find any merit in the writ petition. however, it is open for the petitioner herein to prove his title in so far as the schedule land is concerned in a manner known to law. with the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. sd/- (e.s.indiresh) judge dh list no.: 1 sl no.: 52

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 25328 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SIDDARAJU, S/O SANNJAVARAIAH, AGED 38 YEARS, R/AT MURUDAGALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGENDRA H.C., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, Digitally signed BENGALURU - 560 001. by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA
Location: HIGH 2.    THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER,
COURT OF             MYSURU DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA            MYSURU - 570 001.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MYSURU SUB DIVISION,
4. THE TAHSILDHAR, -2-
5. L.SHIVANNA,
6. L.BASAVARAJU,
7. L.SWAMY, AGED 65 YEARS,
8. L.CHANDRAPPA, AGED 62 YEARS,
9. L.NAGARAJU, AGED 60 YEARS,
10. L.RAJASHEKARAMURTHY, AGED 58 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.5 TO 10 ARE ALL R/AT MURUDAGALLI VILLAGE, JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK,
11. SMT. K LAKSHMI M.R., W/O B. RAGHUNANDAN, AGED 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.2, 11TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN, N.R.COLONY, BENGALURU - 560 019. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE IN RESPECT OF R5 IS HELD SUFFICIENT VIDE ORDER DATED 12.06.2025; R7 SERVED; SRI.H.N.BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R11) -3- THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER RP NO.52/2021 DATED 25.01.2022 PASSED BY THE R2 WHICH IS FILED AS ANNEXURE - A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

2. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 25.01.2022 (Annexure-A) in R.P.No.52 of 2021 on the file of Respondent No.2.

3. Having taken note of the submission made by

the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the finding recorded by the respondent authorities would indicate that, the application has been filed challenging the mutation entries after 38 years. -4-

4. In that view of the matter, the Respondent

No.2 has arrived at a conclusion that as disputed question of facts are involved in so far as the title to the land in question property and as such, directed the parties to establish their right before the Civil Court. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the fact that, the petitioner herein has to establish his right in so far as the schedule properties are concerned, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. However, it is open for the petitioner herein to prove his title in so far as the schedule land is concerned in a manner known to law. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Same Court & Year Karnataka Orders · 2025 Same Parties Siddaraju vs The State of Karnataka Same Judge E.S.Indiresh