- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 17457 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 7338 OF 2017 (LR) IN WP No. 17457/2018 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KENCHAPPA S/O HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 2. SRI. GEVINDA RAJ S/O SANNA THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 3. SRI. SHIVALINGAPPA S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 4. SRI. R. SURESH S/O HUNSEDU RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 5. SRI. NAGAPPA S/O KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 6. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA S/O LAKKAVALLI RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 7. SRI. PHAKERAPPA S/O SRERANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 8. SRI. SHANTHAPPA S/O RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 9. SRI. RANGANATHA S/O MALALAGEPPA RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 10. SRI. PANDAPPA S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARANAHALLI HOBLI SHIVAMOGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN : 577 203. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.N. SAMEER, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NAGARAJA IJARI, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS NO. 1 TO 9; V/O DATED 11.03.2025 PETITION STANDS ABATED AGAINST PETITIONER NO.10) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE BUILDING SHIVAMOGA TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT PIN - 577 201. 2. THE TAHASHILDAR SHIVAMOGGA TALUK TALUK TAHASHILDAR OFFICE SHIVAMOGA CITY SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT PIN - 577 201. 3. SRI. GURUTEAK PRIVATE LIMITED NO. 874, MODI HOSPITAL ROAD RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU PIN - 560 044. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 4. SRI. G. SHRINIVAS S/O LATE GOPALAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 5. SRI. SHIVA PRAKASH S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 6. SRI. MADHU .K S/O KARIBASAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 7. SRI. SHIDDISH .M S/O MANDAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 8. SRI. RAVINDRA .K S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 9. SRI. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE SHANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 10. SRI. NAGARAJAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 11. SRI. L.K. CHANDRU S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 12. SMT. MANJULA W/O LATE SHANMUKAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 13. SMT. RANGAMMA W/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 14. SRI. JAGADISH S/O LATE KUNTARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 15. SRI. MANJUNATH .M S/O LATE MAHALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 16. KARIBADAPPA S/O NAGARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 17. SRI. CHANDRAPPA S/O LATE MALALAGOPPA RANAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 18. SRI. SUNDRAPPA S/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 19. SRI. SHIVARAJAPPA S/O LATE BAIRAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS 20. SRI. RAJASHEKARA S/O LATE HALAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS 21. SRI. NATARAJA S/O RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 22. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O SARASAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 23. SMT. MANJAPPA .A.D S/O LATE RAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 24. SMT. RATHNAMMA W/O LATE KUMARAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS 25. SMT. SARVAMANGALA W/O LATE RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 26. SRI. DEVENDRAPPA S/O LATE RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 27. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O LATE MUKARANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS 28. SRI. ANANDA S/O LATE HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARANAHALLI HOBLI, SHIVAMOGA TALUK SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 203. [CAUSE TITLE AMENDED V/O/D 31.05.2024] …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. VINAY SHREYAS, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SMT. AKSHATHA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R28) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.12.2017 IN PROCEEDINGS NO.R- MIS.21/2014-15 PASSED BY THE R-1 DEPUTY COMMISSIOENR CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2003 IN RRT-CR NO.2840/2003-04 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 IN WP NO. 7338/2017 BETWEEN: 1. GANGA NAIKA S/O HALYA NAIKA AGEDA BOUT 57 YEARS R/O CHAMUNDIPURA, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211. 2. SMT. VELLIAMMA W/O MUNISWAMY GOUNDER AGED 45 YEARS R/O CHAMUNDIPURA, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211. 3. JAVEED S/O ABDHUL HAMEED AGED 39 YEARS R/O DURGAMMANA BEEDI, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211. 4. ABDHUL HAMEED S/O HAYATH SAB AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS R/O DURGAMMANA BEEDI, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211. 5. SHEIK BASHA SAB S/O SHEIK HUSSAIN AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O HOSURU, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211. 6. H.N. GOVERDHAN S/O HANUMANTHAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/O KOHALLI PETE, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211. 7. R. CHIKKAPPA S/O REVAPPA - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 AGE 48 YEARS R/O AYANUR KOTE, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211. 8. AMEER AHMED S/O ABDHUL HAMEED AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O CHAMUNDIPURA, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211. 9. PACHAPPA .M S/O MUNISWAMY GOUNDER AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O CHAMUNDIPURA, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211. 10. NARAYANA .M S/O MUNISWAMY GOUNDER AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O CHAMUNDIPURA, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211. 11. UMESH NAIKA S/O LACHCHA NAIKA AGED 52 YEARS R/O KOHALLI TANDA, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211. 12. SUNDRAPPPA S/O NAGAPPA AGED 50 YEARS R/O AYNUR KOTE, AYANUR SHIMOGA TALUK AND DISTRICT-577 211. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AJAY KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONERS NO. 2 TO 12; V/O/D 08.04.2025 PETITION AGAINST PETITIONER NO.1 STANDS ABATED) - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE TAHSILDAR SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 201. 3. THE REGULARIZATION COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY THE TAHSILDAR SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 201. 4. THE LAND TRIBUNAL SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 201. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN 5. SMT. MAHADEVAMMA W/O PATEL RUDRAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O BILLARADEVARA KOPPA HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. 6. H.G. SHIVARAJAPPA S/O CHANDRAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O BADARAHOSAHALLI SHIMOGA TALUK, SHIMOGA-577 416. 7. S.P. DEVENDRAPPA S/O LATE VEERABASAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 8. PUTTAYALLAPPA S/O Y. GOWDA AGED MAJOR R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. 9. V.Y. GOWDA S/O LATE VEERABASAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. 10. S.P. JAGADHEESH S/O LATE VEERABASAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. 11. H.G. BASAVARAJAPPA S/O CHINNAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O BEDARAHOSAHALLI HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. 12. SMT. VEERAMMA W/O VEERABHADRAPPA GOWDA AGED MAJOR R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. 13. MAHADEVAPPA S/O DODDAMARIYAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 14. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE VEERABASAPPA AGED MAJOR R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI, SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. 15. SMT. SULOCHAN W/O V.Y. GOWDA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. 16. S.P. CHETHAN S/O V.Y. GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. 17. S.P. SUSHMA D/O V.Y. GOWDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. 18. BASVANA GOWDA S/O P. VEERABASAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS R/O SIRIGERE VILLAGE HARNAHALLI HOBLI SHIMOGA TALUK SHIMOGA-577 416. 19. SMT. SUJATHA W/O B.P. PATIL AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 RESIDENT OF SHIVAJINAGAR HAVERI-581 110. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. H. MUJTABA, ADVOCATE FOR R7, R14, R15 AND R18; SRI. RAMESH P. KULKARANI, ADVOCATE FOR R9; R6, R11, R16, R17 AND R19 ARE SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THIS WP FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 05.04.1993 IN LRF (T) INAMLG NO.1-11/1982-83, PASSED BY R-4 AT ANNEXURE-B CONFERRING OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF LANDS IN SY.NO.2 OF MALALAKOPPA VILLAGE IN FAVOR OF R-5 TO 19 AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA ORAL ORDER 1. From the records produced and the arguments advanced, the following facts can be ascertained. 2. In respect of land bearing Sy.No.2 measuring an extent of 119 acres, the revenue entries stood in the name of one S.P.Veerabasappa as per the Record of Rights, Tenancy and Prop Inspection (RTC) for the year 1969-70. The name of S.P.Veerabasappa is - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 stated to have been entered on the basis of a darkasth vide R.R.No.102. 3. However the name of S.P.Veerabasappa was rounded off and the entry "Sarkari Jangal Kharab" was made in the revenue records vide R.R.No.175. 4. This order of the Special Deputy Commissioner holding that the land in question was a Sarkari Jangal Kharab was challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal Nos.36/79 to 47/79 by a group of appellants. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 26.07.1980 allowed the appeals and set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and remanded the matter to the Land Tribunal for holding a fresh enquiry. 5. Pursuant to this order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, the revenue entries were mutated vide M.R.No.5/81-82 in the following terms: - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 ಾರಂ ಾರಂ ಾರಂ ಾರಂ -3 ಾಮ ಾಮ ಾಮ ಾಮ: ಮಳಲ ೊಪ ಮಳಲ ೊಪ ಮಳಲ ೊಪ ಮಳಲ ೊಪ ೋಬ ೋಬ ೋಬ ೋಬ ಾ ಾ ಾ ಾgÀßಹ ಹ ಹ ಹ ಹಕುಬದಾವೆ ಹಕುಬದಾವೆ ಹಕುಬದಾವೆ ಹಕುಬದಾವೆ ಸ ! ಸ ! ಸ ! ಸ ! ಅನುಕಮ ಅನುಕಮ ಅನುಕಮ ಅನುಕಮ ಸಂ$ೆ% ಸಂ$ೆ% ಸಂ$ೆ% ಸಂ$ೆ% 5/81-82 &'(ನ &'(ನ &'(ನ &'(ನ ಾ)* ಾ)* ಾ)* ಾ)* ಅಥ,ಾ ಅಥ,ಾ ಅಥ,ಾ ಅಥ,ಾ ಾ)* ಾ)* ಾ)* ಾ)* ಆ. ಆ. ಆ. ಆ. /ೈ12 /ೈ12 /ೈ12 /ೈ12 RRCR 645/81-82 19/1/82 ಹ3ನ ಹ3ನ ಹ3ನ ಹ3ನ ತರಹ ತರಹ ತರಹ ತರಹ ಅಥ,ಾ ಅಥ,ಾ ಅಥ,ಾ ಅಥ,ಾ ಸ56ಾವ ಸ56ಾವ ಸ56ಾವ ಸ56ಾವ ಮಳಲೊಪ ಮಳಲೊಪ ಮಳಲೊಪ ಮಳಲೊಪ ಾಮದ ಾಮದ ಾಮದ ಾಮದ ಸಂಯುಕ8 ಸಂಯುಕ8 ಸಂಯುಕ8 ಸಂಯುಕ8 9ೇ:ಾಯ 9ೇ:ಾಯ 9ೇ:ಾಯ 9ೇ:ಾಯ ಸಹ ಾರ ಸಹ ಾರ ಸಹ ಾರ ಸಹ ಾರ ಸಂಘದ ಸಂಘದ ಸಂಘದ ಸಂಘದ ಅಧ%=ೆ ಅಧ%=ೆ ಅಧ%=ೆ ಅಧ%=ೆ ಎಂ?ಾ ಎಂ?ಾ ಎಂ?ಾ ಎಂ?ಾgïì@ಂ1 @ಂ1 @ಂ1 @ಂ1 AೕವB AೕವB AೕವB AೕವB Cಾ Cಾ Cಾ Cಾ 24/10/81 ರ'D ರ'D ರ'D ರ'D ಮಳಲ ೊಪ ಮಳಲ ೊಪ ಮಳಲ ೊಪ ಮಳಲ ೊಪ ಾಮದ ಾಮದ ಾಮದ ಾಮದ ಸಸಸಸ.ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ 2 ರರರರ ಜ(ೕನು ಜ(ೕನು ಜ(ೕನು ಜ(ೕನು ಇGಾಂ ಇGಾಂ ಇGಾಂ ಇGಾಂ ರHಾIJK ರHಾIJK ರHಾIJK ರHಾIJK ಸLೆಷN ಸLೆಷN ಸLೆಷN ಸLೆಷN OOOO PPPP ಆHೇಶ ಆHೇಶ ಆHೇಶ ಆHೇಶ £ÀA Dgï ¹ L N Dgï 946/59-60 vÁ 25/10/61 ರರರರ @ೕ/ೆೆ @ೕ/ೆೆ @ೕ/ೆೆ @ೕ/ೆೆ ನಮೂದು ನಮೂದು ನಮೂದು ನಮೂದು RಾOರುವ RಾOರುವ RಾOರುವ RಾOರುವ ಪಹS ಪಹS ಪಹS ಪಹS ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ ಾಗೂ $ಾCೆ $ಾCೆ $ಾCೆ $ಾCೆ HಾಖೆಯನುV HಾಖೆಯನುV HಾಖೆಯನುV HಾಖೆಯನುV ವWಾ ವWಾ ವWಾ ವWಾ RಾO RಾO RಾO RಾO ಕGಾ*ಟಕ ಕGಾ*ಟಕ ಕGಾ*ಟಕ ಕGಾ*ಟಕ ಅ&ೇ1 ಅ&ೇ1 ಅ&ೇ1 ಅ&ೇ1 Yಬೂ%ನN Yಬೂ%ನN Yಬೂ%ನN Yಬೂ%ನN ಆHೇಶ ಆHೇಶ ಆHೇಶ ಆHೇಶ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ ನಂ 36:79 ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ ಂದ 74:79(L JJ¸ï) vÁ 26/7/1980 ರರರರ ಆHೇಶದಂCೆ ಆHೇಶದಂCೆ ಆHೇಶದಂCೆ ಆHೇಶದಂCೆ Zಂ[ನ Zಂ[ನ Zಂ[ನ Zಂ[ನ ಸಂಘದ ಸಂಘದ ಸಂಘದ ಸಂಘದ ಸದಸ%ರುಗಳ ಸದಸ%ರುಗಳ ಸದಸ%ರುಗಳ ಸದಸ%ರುಗಳ ೆಸೆ ೆಸೆ ೆಸೆ ೆಸೆ \ದ'ನಂCೆ \ದ'ನಂCೆ \ದ'ನಂCೆ \ದ'ನಂCೆ ಾCೆ ಾCೆ ಾCೆ ಾCೆ ಮತು8 ಮತು8 ಮತು8 ಮತು8 ಪಹS ಪಹS ಪಹS ಪಹS Hಾಖಲು Hಾಖಲು Hಾಖಲು Hಾಖಲು RಾಡುವಂCೆ RಾಡುವಂCೆ RಾಡುವಂCೆ RಾಡುವಂCೆ ೋ ೋ ೋ ೋ ಅ* ಅ* ಅ* ಅ* ೊಟ ೊಟ ೊಟ ೊಟ @ೕ/ೆೆ @ೕ/ೆೆ @ೕ/ೆೆ @ೕ/ೆೆ ಕಡತವನುV ಕಡತವನುV ಕಡತವನುV ಕಡತವನುV ಪ^ೕ'P ಪ^ೕ'P ಪ^ೕ'P ಪ^ೕ'P ಮುಂHೆ ಮುಂHೆ ಮುಂHೆ ಮುಂHೆ ಭೂ ಭೂ ಭೂ ಭೂGಾ%ಯ Gಾ%ಯ Gಾ%ಯ Gಾ%ಯ ಮಂಡಯ'D ಮಂಡಯ'D ಮಂಡಯ'D ಮಂಡಯ'D KೕRಾ*ನ,ಾಗುವವ/ೆೆ KೕRಾ*ನ,ಾಗುವವ/ೆೆ KೕRಾ*ನ,ಾಗುವವ/ೆೆ KೕRಾ*ನ,ಾಗುವವ/ೆೆ Aಮ` Aಮ` Aಮ` Aಮ` ಸಂಘದ ಸಂಘದ ಸಂಘದ ಸಂಘದ ಸದಸ%ರುಗಳ ಸದಸ%ರುಗಳ ಸದಸ%ರುಗಳ ಸದಸ%ರುಗಳ ೆಸೆ ೆಸೆ ೆಸೆ ೆಸೆ GೊಂHಾJಸಲು GೊಂHಾJಸಲು GೊಂHಾJಸಲು GೊಂHಾJಸಲು ಆHೇಶ ಆHೇಶ ಆHೇಶ ಆHೇಶ AೕOHೆ AೕOHೆ AೕOHೆ AೕOHೆ ¸À»/- ತಹ^ೕಾI! ತಹ^ೕಾI! ತಹ^ೕಾI! ತಹ^ೕಾI! ^ವ\a ^ವ\a ^ವ\a ^ವ\a CಾಲೂDಕು CಾಲೂDಕು CಾಲೂDಕು CಾಲೂDಕು - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 6. Thus, as on the year 1981-82, the entry of name of the Sarkari Jangal Kharab was deleted and as requested by the President, Malalagoppa Gramada Samyuktha Besaya Sahakara Sangha (Malalagoppa Village United Agricultural Co-operative Society) the names of the members of the Sangha till the disposal of the matter by the Land Tribunal was entered. 7. On remand, the Land Tribunal however proceeded to confer occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.119 in favour of 11 applicants. The operative portion of the Land Tribunal reads as follows: "DzÉñÀ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ J¯Áè PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ 1955 E£ÁA PÁ¬ÄzÉ PÀ®A 27gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ PɼÀPÀAqÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁUÀĪÀ½zÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ £ÉÆAzÀt ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀgÁé£ÀĪÀÄvÀ¢AzÀ wêÀiÁð¤¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. 1) ²æêÀÄw ªÀĺÁzÉêÀªÀÄä PÉÆÃA ¥ÀmÉïï gÀÄzÀæ¥Àà 5-00 qÉæöÊ 2) J eÉ © ²ªÀgÁd¥Àà ©£ï a£ÀߥÀà 5-00 3) ¥ÀÄaÑAiÀÄ¥Àà ©£ï « ªÉÊ UËqÀ 5-00 4) « ªÉÊ UËqÀ ©£ï J¸ï ¦ «ÃgÀ§¸À¥Àà UËqÀ 5-00 5) J¸ï.¦ «ÃgÀ§¸À¥Àà ©£ï «ÃgÀ§¸À¥Àà ¥Ëw ¸ÉÆÃzÀgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄPÀ̼ÀÄ 50-00 + 50-00 + 19-00 6) J¸ï.¦ zÉêÉÃAzÀæ¥Àà ©£ï «ÃgÀ§¸À¥Àà 5-00 7) ¸Á«vÀæªÀÄä PÉÆÃA PÉ ¸ÀtÚªÀÄ®è¥Àà 5-00 8) ºÉZï.f §¸ÀªÀgÁd¥Àà ©£ï a£ÀߥÀà 5-00 9) «ÃgÀªÀÄä PÉÆÃA «ÃgÀ¨sÀzÀæ¥Àà UËqÀ 5-00 10) ªÀĺÁzÉêÀ¥Àà ©£ï zÉÆqÀتÀÄjAiÀÄ¥Àà 5-00 - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 11) ¸ÀIJîªÀÄä PÉÆÃA «ÃgÀ§¸À¥Àà 5-00" 8. It appears that the matter stood thus, the revenue entries were once again mutated vide M.R.No.4/1998-99, by which the name of the liquidator was ordered to be entered. Thereafter, once again, revenue entries were mutated vide M.R.No.2/2002-03 on the basis of the order of the Tahsildar. By virtue of this order, the name of S.P.Devendrappa, V.Y.Gowda, S.P.Jagadeesh, S.P.Basavanagowda were ordered to be entered in the revenue records jointly in respect of 119 acres of Sy.No.2/P49. 9. It may be pertinent to state here that being aggrieved by the order passed by the Land Tribunal on 05.04.1993, Kenchappa, petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.17457/2018 challenged the order of the Land Tribunal. However, he chose to thereafter withdraw this writ petition on 11.01.2002. Thus, the challenge made by Kenchappa, petitioner No.1 in - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 W.P.No.17457/2018 to the order of the Land Tribunal stood withdrawn and he consequently he had accepted the order of the Land Tribunal. 10. Subsequently, 38 petitioners also filed W.P.No.40419-456/1995 challenging the order of the Land Tribunal. Incidentally, petitioner Nos.7, 9 and 10 in W.P.No.17457/2018 were the petitioner Nos.9, 28 and 19 respectively. 11. The petitioners therein also chose to withdraw the writ petition on 28.11.2001. It is therefore clear that the order of the Land Tribunal was the subject matter of challenge in two writ petitions and the same were withdrawn and, incidentally four of the petitioners in the present batch of the writ petitions, were the petitioners in those writ petitions. It therefore follows at least 4 of the petitioners herein had accepted the order of the Land Tribunal which conferred occupancy rights in favour of 11 applicants. - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 12. It may also be pertinent to state here that there was yet another writ petition in W.P.No.13054- 13065/2015 filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.7338/2017 challenging the order of the Land Tribunal. This writ petition which was filed in the year 2015 also sought to challenge the order of the Land Tribunal dated 05.04.1993. This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 02.09.2015. An application filed for recalling the said order and for restoration of the writ petition was also rejected by this Court on 17.02.2016. 13. After the dismissal of the said application for restoration, the present writ petition has been filed on 16.02.2017 i.e., nearly a year thereafter once again challenging the order of the Land Tribunal. 14. It may be pertinent to state here that, after the writ petitions filed challenging the order of the Land Tribunal were withdrawn in the year 2001 and 2002, the recipients of the order of the Land Tribunal - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 proceeded to execute seven Sale Deeds on 21.08.2003 and on 19.01.2004, on the basis of these Sale Deeds, the Tahsildar appears to have passed an order on 31.10.2003 directing mutation of their names in the revenue records. Accordingly, the names of the purchasers have been entered in the revenue records as per M.R.No.14/2003-04. 15. Being aggrieved by this order of mutation M.R.No.14/2003-04, the petitioners herein preferred a revision under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order has dismissed the revision and, as a consequence, the petitioners have filed this writ petition. 16. It may also be pertinent to state here that in the year 2009, 12 of the petitioners herein had filed suits seeking for injunction and the same were either dismissed on merits or were dismissed for non- prosecution. It is contended by the contesting - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 respondents that, in these suits the fact that the Land Tribunal had passed an order in favour of their vendors was brought to the notice of the plaintiffs therein. 17. The Deputy Commissioner has fundamentally dismissed the revision filed under Section 136(3) on the ground that the order of the Land Tribunal on 05.04.1993 had remained unchallenged and, in the light of this order of the Land Tribunal, the beneficiaries of the order of the Land Tribunal could have alienated their properties and since there are Sale Deeds executed by them in favour of the present Khatedars, the orders of mutation cannot be found fault with. 18. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.17457/2018 contends that notwithstanding the dismissal of W.P.No.13054/2015 and also the dismissal of the application for restoration, the petitioners can nevertheless challenge the order of - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 the Land Tribunal and the petitioners had accordingly exercised this right and this petition cannot therefore be dismissed on the ground that it was not maintainable or hit by the principles of res judicata. 19. Learned counsel places reliance on Bhudeo's case1 to contend that the statute gives a litigant the liberty of either choosing to file a petition seeking for restoration or for filing a suit and merely because a petition for restoration is filed and rejected, that would not take away the other right to file a fresh suit. He also places reliance on the judgment rendered by Jharkand High Court in Smt.Karmi Devi's case2. 20. The petitioners in W.P.17457/2018 contends that the revenue entries could not have been made in favour of the purchasers essentially because the entries were not made in the revenue records on the basis of 1 Bhudeo Vs. Musammat Baikunthi - 63 IND. CAS. 239 2 Smt.Karmi Devi vs Satendra Kumar Singh & Ors in M.A.No.381 of 2007 - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 the order of the Land Tribunal and even a Form No.10 had not been issued in favour of the recipients. 21. It is contended by the petitioners that they have filed applications seeking for regularization of their possession and they are in possession of the properties in question and, therefore, the change of entries would seriously prejudice them and cannot therefore be sustained. An application is also filed for impleading in W.P.No.17457/2018, in which also the applicants therein contend that they have made applications for regularization and are in possession and, therefore, the entries could not be mutated to their disadvantage. 22. It is also contended that the lands in question were Sarkari Jangal Kharab and they could therefore not be the subject matter of the right of occupancy rights by the Land Tribunal. - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 23. Arguments are also sought to advance that the revenue entries had essentially been entered in the name of the society and, subsequently, in the name of the liquidator and, in that view of the matter, the revenue entries could never have been mutated in favour of the recipients of the order of the Land Tribunal and, subsequently, in the name of the their purchasers. 24. In the light of the above, the only question that arises for consideration in these writ petitions is: 1. Whether the petitioners in W.P.No.7338/2017 has made out a case for interference with the order of the Land Tribunal dated 05.04.1993? 2. Whether the petitioners in W.P.No.17457/2018 are justified in challenging the order of the Deputy Commissioner passed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act? - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 25. As already noticed above, the order of the Land Tribunal was passed on 05.04.1993. This order of the Land Tribunal was challenged basically in three sets of writ petitions i.e., in W.P.13764/1994 (by Kenchappa, the 1st petitioner in W.P.No.17457/2018), in W.P.No.40419-456/1995 by petitioner Nos.7, 9 and 10. Admittedly, these two writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn on 11.01.2002 and on 28.11.2001. Thus, petitioner Nos.1, 7, 9 and 10 have fundamentally accepted the order of the Land Tribunal, which conferred occupancy rights in favour of 11 applicants. 26. In the light of this withdrawal of the writ petition, in my view, these petitioners have lost the right to challenge the order of the Land Tribunal for the second time. 27. The third set of writ petition i.e., W.P.No.13054/2015 was filed by the petitioners in W.P.No.7338/2017. This writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 and the application filed for restoration is also dismissed. 28. The argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.No.7338/2017 that notwithstanding the dismissal of restoration of petition, the petitioners could file yet another writ petition cannot be accepted. Though reliance is placed on the aforementioned decisions in Bhudeo and Smt.Karmi Devi's case (supra), in my view, the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Dabulu Shedthi's case3, covers the issue and, it is therefore clear that the writ petition filed by the present petitioners in W.P.No.7338/2017 is not maintainable. 29. It may also be pertinent to state here that essentially the petitioners in W.P.No.7338/2017 are challenging an order of the Land Tribunal passed on 05.04.1993, 3 Dabulu Shedthi Vs. State of Karnataka and Others - 2005 SCC Online Kar 181 - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 after a period of 14 years and that too for the second time. In my view, even on the ground of delay and latches, this petition is liable to be dismissed. Consequently, W.P.No.7338/2017 filed filed challenging an order of the Land Tribunal dated 05.04.1993 is dismissed. 30. As far as the challenge to the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner against the order passed under Section 136(3) i.e., in W.P.No.17457/2018 is concerned, it is to be noticed here that petitioner Nos.1, 7, 9 and 10 had filed writ petitions challenging the order of the Tribunal and had withdrawn the same. Therefore, at least to the extent of these petitioners, W.P.No.17457/2018 will have to be dismissed as not maintainable. 31. Insofar as the other petitioners are concerned, it is not in dispute that they have not challenged the order of the Land Tribunal dated 05.04.1993 and, therefore, the benefit that the 11 applicants got - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 under the order of the Land Tribunal remains unchallenged and stands admitted by the other petitioners. 32. If the order of the Land Tribunal is accepted by the other petitioners, then they cannot obviously challenge the allegations made by the recipients of the order of the Land Tribunal in favour of the contesting respondents. It is to be noticed here that the Tahsildar has passed an order of mutation on the basis of 7 Registered Sale Deeds. It is settled law that whenever Registered Sale Deeds are executed, the revenue entries are bound to give effect to the same and mutate the names in accordance with the Sale Deeds. 33. An argument is however sought to be advanced that though the mutation made in favour of the purchasers vide M.R.No.14/2003-04 is said to be on the basis of the order of the Tahsildar dated 31.10.2003, there is in fact no such order and, - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 consequently M.R.No.14/2003-04 would be non-est. It is to be kept in mind that M.R.No.14/2003-04 is essentially based on 7 Registered Sale Deeds and, even assuming for a minute that the order of the Tahsildar is not available, that will not takeaway the fact that there has been a conveyance of title in favour of the contesting respondents under these 7 Sale Deeds. The argument therefore that there being no order of the Tahsildar dated 31.10.2003, M.R.No.14/2003-04 is non-est cannot be accepted. 34. To reiterate so long as the order of the Land Tribunal dated 05.04.1993 remains unchallenged by the remaining petitioners in W.P.No.17457/2018, they cannot have any locus standi to question the subsequent mutation made in favour of the purchasers from the recipients of the order of the Land Tribunal. 35. I am therefore of the view that there is no merit in the writ petition filed by the other petitioners in - 28 - NC: 2025:KHC:15600 WP No. 17457 of 2018 C/W WP No. 7338 of 2017 W.P.No.17457/2018 and the same is also therefore dismissed. 36. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2