JUDGMENT : (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16252/2023 (GM-ST/RN). 2. Sri.Sunil Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in appreciating the facts and material on record. It is submitted that the appellants are the heirs of the original grantee Sri.V.Venkataramana who was granted land to the extent of 9 acres 20 guntas including kharab land of 19 guntas at Kudlu Village, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk. It is submitted that certain lands were granted in favour of the Karnataka State Reserve Police in Sy.No.148 of Kudlu Village and the lands of the appellants are within the said survey number. It is further submitted that the respondent No.7 clandestinely got the sale deed registered on 23.05.2023 from Smt.Nagarathna and others in respect of 1 acre of land out of 120 acres 4 guntas in Sy.No.148 of Kudlu Village without 11E sketch, which is impermissible. It is also submitted that the extent in Sy.No.148 is a larger one and by furnishing the imaginary schedule to the sale deeds, the sale deeds were registered. The grantees in Sy.No.148 i.e. the Government departments as well as the appellants objected for effecting the mutation entries in favour of the respondent No.7. Hence, they have challenged the entire process of registration of the sale deeds which is permissible in law as the process of registration is in violation of law and the consequential sale deeds are void ab initio. Hence, he seeks to allow the writ appeal by granting the reliefs sought in the writ petition. 3. Per contra, Smt.Pramodhini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State- respondents supports the impugned order and submits that the appellant has no locus standi to file the writ petition as admittedly, the land granted to the appellants is in Sy.No.72 of Kudlu Village and not Sy.No.148 which has been rightly considered by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the appeal. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both the sides. Hence, she seeks to dismiss the appeal. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-respondents and meticulously perused the material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both the sides. 5. The appellants filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs: "I. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of registration accorded by the respondent No.6 with respect to sale deed Dated: 23.05.2023 bearing-Document No. BNG(U) ANKL SRO NO.1706/23-24, Book No.1 Containing total sheets 19 of 20 to 29 pages registered in the office of the Senior sub-registrar Anekal found at Annexure A1 and sale deed dated 25.05.2023 bearing Document No. BNG(U) ANKL SRO NO.1896/23-24, Book No.1 Containing total sheets 15 of 14 to 25 pages registered in the office of the Senior sub-registrar Anekal, found at Annexure A2. II. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 restraining him from recording any acquisition of rights by virtue of the sale deed found at Annexure-A-1 and A-2, till compliance of section 131C of Karnataka Land revenue Act read with Rule 46H Karnataka Land revenue Rules. III. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to consider objections filed by Petitioner No.1 placed as Annexure-B objecting the change of mutations and RTC to the name of Respondent No.7 by the Respondent No.2." 6. The primary contention of the appellants is that the process of registration of the sale deed of the respondent No.7 by the respondent No.6-Sub-Registrar at Annexures-A1 and A2 are contrary to law and without producing 11E sketch. It is to be noticed that the appellants are claiming as the grand children of the original grantee Sri.V.Venkataramana in whose favour, the land measuring 9 acre 20 guntas including 19 guntas of kharab land was granted by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore vide order dated 08.11.1966. Admittedly, the appellants' lands are in Sy.No.72 of Kudlu Village, Anekal Taluk and the subject matter of the sale deed at Annexures-A1 and A2 are in Sy.No.148 of Kudlu Village. The learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants have no locus to question the sale deeds and the process of registration. Admittedly, the appellants' lands are in Sy.No.72 of Kudlu Village, Anekal Taluk and the subject matter of the sale deed at Annexures-A1 and A2 are in Sy.No.148 of Kudlu Village. The learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants have no locus to question the sale deeds and the process of registration. We do not find any error in the said finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has also taken note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ASSET RECONSTRUCTION COMPANY (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. S.P.VELAYUTHAM , (2022) 17 SCR 637 and recorded the finding that it is open to challenge the process of registration and further held that the appellants have no locus as the subject matter of the lands are different. The said finding is based on the consideration of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the material on record which does not call for any interference. 7. The next contention of the appellants that the claim of the respondent No.7 in Sy.No.148 of Kudlu Village is more than the total extent and the other grantees have raised an objection with regard to the mutation entry etc., cannot be gone into in these proceedings. The further assertion of the appellants that the land granted to the family of the appellants is between the total extent of land in Sy.No.148 and the survey record clearly demonstrates that the attempt of the respondent No.7 in getting the sale deed registered contrary to law is also required to be rejected as this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be expected to adjudicate the disputed facts between the parties and on this count also, the appeal is liable to be rejected. We do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is devoid of merit and the same is rejected. Consequently, the pending interlocutory application stands disposed. No order as to costs.