Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 2783 OF 2022 (KLR-LG)
BETWEEN:
1. DASEGOWDA AGED 88 YEARS S/O LAKSHMEGOWDA
2. JAYAMMA AGED 78 YEARS W/O RANGEGOWDA
3. GAVEGOWDA S/O LATE KAALEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
PAPEGOWDA @ MANJUNATH @ MARIGOWDA AGED 72 YEARS S/O LATE GAVEGOWDA
4. GANGARAJU AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE GAVEGOWDA
5. RAMEGOWDA S/O LATE CHUNCHEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
CHANNABOREGOWDA AGED 74 YEARS S/O LATE RAMEGOWDA
Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
6. KESHAVEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
MANU AGED 43 YEARS S/O LATE KESHAVEGOWDA
7. K.M. NINGEGOWDA @ NINGEGOWDA AGED 73 YEARS S/O MARIGOWDA
8. MARIGOWDA S/O JAVAREGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
RAJE GOWDA AGED 69 YEARS S/O LATE MARIGOWDA
9. KRISHNEGOWDA AGED 67 YEARS S/O LATE MARIGOWDA
10. NIRVANEGOWDA S/O LATE YELLAKEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
DHARMEGOWDA @ MARIGOWDA AGED 65 YEARS S/O LATE NIRVANEGOWDA
11. ANNEGOWDA AGED 74 YEARS S/O MARIGOWDA
12. NANJAIAH AGED 88 YEARS S/O SANGAIAH
NANJEGOWDA S/O JAVAREGOWDA
- 3 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
13. SINCE DEAD BY LRS REPRESENTED BY
EEREGOWDA AGED 65 YEARS S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA
14. BOMMEGOWDA AGED 62 YEARS S/O LATE NANJEGOWDA
15. PUTTAPPA S/O SANGAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS
NAGARAJU AGED 70 YEARS S/O LATE PUTTAPPA
PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 15 ARE R/AT HACHAGODANAHALLI VILLAGE TEJUR POST, KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 219. …PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER B.M. ROAD, HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN - 573 201. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HASSAN SUB DIVISION HASSAN - 573 201. - 4 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
4. TAHASILDAR HASSAN TALUK HASSAN - 573 201. 5. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER HEMAVATHI RESERVOIR PROJECT REHABILIATION, HRP (P) OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN - 573 201. 6. MANJEGOWDA AGED 48 YEARS S/O PUTTEGOWDA
7. JUNJAIAH AGED 60 YEARS S/O BASAVAIAH
8. DEVARAJU AGED 40 YEARS S/O HONGAIAH
9. KRISHNAIAH AGED 60 YEARS S/O BORAIAH
10. ARASAIAH AGED 65 YEARS S/O KARIAIAH
DYAVEGOWDA S/O PUTTEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRs
11.
PUTTAMMA W/O LATE DYAVEGOWDA AGED 60 YEARS
12. SATISHA 35 YEARS S/O DYAVEGOWDA
- 5 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
13. THIMMAIAH S/O DASAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRs
KUMARA AGED 45 YEARS S/O LATE THIMMAIAH
14. EERAMMA D/O SHAKUNIGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
NAGESHA AGED 40 YEARS S/O SHAKUNEGOWDA
15. SIDEGOWDA S/O DYAVEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
NAGARAJU AGED 38 YEARS S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA
16. MUDDEGOWDA S/O MASTHIGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
MANJAPPA AGED 50 YEARS S/O BASAVEGOWDA
17. ANNAPPA AGED 48 YEARS S/O BASAVEGOWDA
18. SHANTHAMMA AGED 58 YEARS W/O ANNEGOWDA
- 6 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
19. MANJUNATHA AGED 46 YEARS S/O PUTTEGOWDA
20. THIMMEGOWDA S/O NANJEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
EERAMMA AGED 70 YEARS W/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA
21. AMIRSAB AGED 70 YEARS S/O AMID HUSAIAH
22. H.B. KUMAR AGED 35 YEARS S/O H.D. BASAVEGOWDA
23. RAMESH AGED 42 YEARS S/O MANJEGOWDA
24. KALAMMA AGED 71 YEARS D/O GIDDEGOWDA
25. JAYAMMA AGED 64 YEARS W/O H K EREGOWDA
26. LAKSHMAMMA AGED 69 YEARS W/O MANJEGOWDA
27. MANJAMMA AGED 47 YEARS W/O H M DEVEGOWDA
28. MANJEGOWDA AGED 50 YEARS
- 7 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
S/O DYAVEGOWDA
29. SEETHAMMA AGED 58 YEARS W/O H D SHIVARAJU
30. EEREGOWDA AGED 65 YEARS S/O PUTTEGOWDA
31. RUKMINI AGED 40 YEARS W/O MAHADEVA
32. SHIVARAJU AGED 54 YEARS S/O PUTTEGOWDA
33. DYAVAMMA AGED 61 YEARS W/O DASAIAH
34. SUBBEGOWDA AGED 59 YEARS S/O RANGEGOWDA
35. DYAVEGOWDA S/O EREGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
DINESHA AGED 35 YEARS S/O LATE DYAVEGOWDA
36. MANJEGOWDA AGED 33 YEARS S/O LATE DYAVEGOWDA
37. H K CHANDREGOWDA AGED 64 YEARS S/O KAALEGOWDA
- 8 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
38. JAVAREGOWDA S/O KARIGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
PARVATHI AGED 63 YEARS W/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA
39. UMESHA AGED 30 YEARS S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA
40. KUMARA AGED 28 YEARS S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA
41. SAROJAMMA AGED 64 YEARS W/O SHIVANNA
42.
GANGAMMA AGED 38 YEARS W/O MANJEGOWDA
43. H C MANJEGOWDA AGED 38 YEARS S/O CHIKKEGOWDA
44. H JAYAMMA AGED 60 YEARS W/O PAPAIAH
45. MOHAMMED SAB S/O ABDUL SAB SINCE DEAD BY LRS
BASITH AGED 70 YEARS S/O LATE MOHAMMED SAB
- 9 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
46. RANGEGOWDA AGED 65 YEARS S/O MAALEGOWDA
47. SHIVAMMA AGED 36 YEARS W/O HAALEGOWDA
48. JAYAMMA AGED 62 YEARS W/O RANGEGOWDA
49. H B RANGASWAMY AGED 47 YEARS S/O BOREGOWDA
50. DEVAMMA D/O KARIAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS
ARASAIAH AGED 45 YEARS S/O KARIAIAH
51. BHASHASAB AGED 70 YEARS S/O PEER HUSSAIN
52. MANJEGOWDA S/O NANJEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
SHIVANNA AGED 48 YEARS S/O LATE MANJE GOWDA
53. KUMARA AGED 45 YEARS S/O LATE MANJEGOWDA
54. KALAMMA AGED 68 YEARS
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
D/O PUTTEGOWDA
55. JAYAMMA AGED 45 YEARS W/O DYAVEGOWDA
56. RANGEGOWDA AGED 70 YEARS S/O NANJEGOWDA
57. H A RAJEGOWDA S/O H D APPANAGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
MOHANA AGED 40 YEARS S/O LATE H A RAJEGOWDA
58. RUDRAMMA W/O GURUBASAIAH SINCE DEAD BY LRS
RUDRAIAH AGED 60 YEARS, S/O GURUBASAIAH
BASAVEGOWDA S/O DYAVEGOWDA., SINCE DEAD BY LRS.,
59. KUMARA AGED 48 YEARS S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA
60. CHANDREGOWDA S/O LATE BASAVEGOWDA AGED 46 YEARS
61. DYAVAMMA AGED 60 YEARS W/O NINGEGOWDA
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
62. BORAMMA W/O H D NANJEGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY LRS
KUMAR AGED 50 YEARS S/O BASAVEGOWDA
63. MAHESHA AGED 48 YEARS S/O BASAVEGOWDA
64. CHANDREGOWDA S/O BASAVEGOWDA AGED 46 YEARS
65. RUKKESHA AGED 43 YEARS S/O BASAVEGOWDA
66. NANJAPPA AGED 63 YEARS S/O HANUMATHEGOWDA
67. SANAMMA W/O RAMEGOWDA SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY LRS
SANNEGOWDA AGED 50 YEARS S/O RAMEGOWDA
68. RANGASWAMY AGED 48 YEARS S/O RAMEGOWDA
69. H R RANGEGOWDA S/O H D RUDREGOWDA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
TARANATH
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
S/O LATE H R RANGEGOWDA AGED 35 YEARS
70.
SANAMMA AGED 51 YEARS W/O VEERABHADREGOWDA
71. H D PUTTEGOWDA AGED 63 YEARS S/O DYAVEGOWDA
72. H M JAYANNA AGED 45 YEARS S/O C MANJAIAH
73. H M DYAVEGOWDA AGED 60 YEARS S/O MANJEGOWDA
R-6 TO R-73 ARE R/AT HACHAGODANAHALLI VILLAGE TEJUR POST KASABA HOBLI HASSAN TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 219 …RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. S. CHANDINI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. DEVAIAH .I.M, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R9, R18, R19, R21 TO R25, R26 TO R28, R30 TO R32, R34, R37, R41, R43, R44, R47, R49, R56, R61, R67, R70 AND R72;
(R-7, R-11 AND R-51 WHICH IS RETURNED WITH OFFICE OBJECTION) R10, R13 TO R15, R20, R25, R33, R36, R38 TO R40, R46, R50, R55, R57, R59, R62, R65, R68, R69, R73 ARE SEVED BUT UNREPRESENTED);
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE R2/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN IN R.A.20/2012-13 DATED 07.10.2021 AT ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY, ETC.
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
ORAL ORDER
1. The order of mutation made vide M.R.No.2/06-07, 5/06-07, 6/06-07, 7/06-07 and 8/06-07 were challenged before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. By the said order, the names of the petitioners herein had been entered on the ground that the land had been granted to them and in some cases on inheritance.
2. The appellants before the Assistant commissioner were persons in whose favor lands had been granted, but subsequently the grants were cancelled and the cancellation was also confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner by the dismissal of their appeals.
3. The Assistant Commissioner though noticed this fact that the claim of the appellants over the lands in
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
question were rejected and also confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, has however proceeded to pass an order cancelling the order of mutation in favor of the petitioners herein and has passed an
order directing the Tahsildar to verify whether the lands in question had been reserved for displaced holders and whether the petitioners herein were in fact displaced holders and were granted the land.
4. Being aggrieved by this order, the petitioners who were respondents before the Assistant Commissioner alone preferred an appeal. The contesting respondents herein, whose appeal was dismissed accepted the order of the Assistant Commissioner and did not challenge the same.
5. The Deputy Commissioner in the revision filed by the petitioners (who were respondents before the Assistant Commissioner), has proceeded to go one step further and has stated that the order dated 19.05.1978 by which the land had been reserved for
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
displaced persons was to be set aside and the entries as it stood prior to the orders passed by the Committee on 05.09.1994 would have to be restored.
6. In other words, the Deputy Commissioner has basically set aside the
order passed by the Government reserving the land bearing Sy.Nos.12 and 13 are being assigned to the displaced holders of Hemavathi River. Obviously, the Deputy Commissioner could not have passed this order in a revision that had been filed by the petitioner, wherein the only question that was raised by them was as to whether the Assistant Commissioner could have
directed an enquiry to be made in respect of the grants made in favour of the petitioners when he found that the contesting respondents had no right to challenge the order of mutation in as much as their claim over land had been rejected and also confirmed the Deputy Commissioner.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
7. In a proceeding under Section 136(2) of the Act, the only question that has to be considered by the Appellate Authority is as to whether the entry that has been made was pursuant to a valid acquisition of right over the lands in question.
8. In this case, the only question that had to be considered by the Assistant Commissioner was to whether there was an order in favour of the petitioners which entitled their name to be registered in the RTC. In such a proceeding, the Assistant Commissioner could not have gone beyond the authority conferred him under Section 136(2) of the Act and decided to hold a roving enquiry as to whether the land in question had been reserved for being granted to displaced persons and whether a grant had been made in accordance with law.
9. In that view of the matter, in my view, the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17403 WP No. 2783 of 2022
Commissioner cannot be sustained and the same are quashed.
10. The matter shall now stand remanded to the Assistant Commissioner with the direction to the Assistant Commissioner that he shall only consider the question as to whether the entries made in favor of the petitioners vide the aforementioned MRs are based on any lawful orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.
11. Subject to the above, this writ petition is allowed.
Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE
GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31