- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:9856 WP No. 4008 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 4008 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. B. NAGARAJAPPA, S/O MALLAPPA BOGERA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/A SURAGONDANAKOPPA VILLAGE, NYAMATI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577225. (SENIOR CITIZEN BENEFIT NOT CLAIMED) …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YOGESH V.KOTEMATH., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE 577 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HONNALLI SUB-DIVISION, HONNALLI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 217. 4. THE TAHASILDAR NYAMATHI TALUK, NYAMATHI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577 223. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:9856 WP No. 4008 of 2025 5. SMT. REVAMMA W/O KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, 6. SRI. THOTAPPA S/O SIDDALINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 7. SRI. MAHESHWARAPPA S/O SIDDESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R-5 TO R-7 ARE R/O SURAGONDANAKOPPA VILLAGE, NYAMATI TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT - 577225. 8. SMT. LATHA, W/O MALLIKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, 9. SUPRIYA, D/O MALLIKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, 10. CHANDANA, D/O MALLIKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, 11. VINUTHA, D/O MALLIKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R-8 TO 11 ARE R/O RAMENAKOPPA VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 125. 12. SMT. VANAJAKSHAMMA D/O KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O NELAVALA, SHIKARIPURA TALLUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577427. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9856 WP No. 4008 of 2025 13. SMT. SHOBA D/O KARIBASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O HARAMAGHATTA VILLAGE, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT - 577 216. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH., HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD. 21.11.2024 IN RA. CR-14.2024-25 PASSED BY R-2 AUTHORITY VIDE ANNX-L HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ETC. THIS PETITION, 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. It is not in dispute that RTC reflected the name of Siddalingappa in respect of Sy.No.221 measuring 8 acres 8 guntas in respect of Chinnakatte village, Nyamthi Taluk, Davangere district. 2. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein sought for confirmation of occupancy rights on the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:9856 WP No. 4008 of 2025 premise that he was a tenant under Siddalingappa. This application, after several rounds of litigation, has been rejected by the Land Tribunal and is the subject matter presently in W.P. No.20807/2022. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has the benefit of an interim order of status quo in the said Writ Petition. 4. It appears that during the pendency of these proceedings Siddalingappa passed away and his children made an application for getting their names entered in the records. This request was acceded to by the Thasildar, but reversed in an appeal by the Assistant Commissioner. 5. The Deputy Commissioner has, however, allowed the Revision filed by the grand children and has directed that the names of the legal representatives of Siddalingappa be entered in the revenue records and an endorsement should also be made in the revenue - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:9856 WP No. 4008 of 2025 records that there is an interim order of status quo granted in favour of the petitioner in W.P. No.20807/2022. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by this order of the Deputy Commissioner. 7. As already noticed above, it is not in dispute that revenue entries were standing in the name of Siddalingappa and consequently, if Siddalingappa is no more, it is obvious that his legal representatives would be entitled to come on record as the kathedars. 8. This decision of the revenue authorities to incorporate the names of the legal representatives of Siddalingappa cannot be questioned by the petitioner, who is yet to secure the rights over the properties in question. In fact, the Deputy Commissioner, by the order, has protected the interest of the petitioner stating that the entries that - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:9856 WP No. 4008 of 2025 were to be made in favour of the legal representatives of Siddalingappa would also contain the endorsement that an interim order of status quo was granted to the petitioner in W.P.No.20807/2022. 9. In the light of the above, in my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 10. It is, however, needless to state that in the event the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and occupancy rights are conferred in favour of the petitioner, the revenue entries would have to automatically abide by such an order. 11. It is also needless to state that the order of status quo granted by this Court in W.P. No.20807/2022 shall remain unaffected by this order and this order is confined only to the revenue entries. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:9856 WP No. 4008 of 2025 12. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23