- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16117 WP No. 11423 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 11423 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT RASIKA H RAI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE HARSHA V RAL, R/AT UMESHA BHAVAN, MANGALADEVI ROAD, MANGALURU-575 001 2. SMT. RAMYA H SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE HARSHA V RAL, R/AT UMESHA BHAVAN, MANGALADEVI ROAD, MANGALURU-575 001 3. SRI PARIKSHITH H RAI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SON OF LATE HARSHA V RAI, R/AT UMESHA BHAVAN, MANGALADEVI ROAD, MANGALURU-575 001 4. SRI. SANTHOSH V RAI, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, SON OF LATE BLN RAL, R/AT UMESHA BHAVAN, MANGALADEVI ROAD, MANGALURU-575 001 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PUNDIKAI ISHWARA BHAT., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16117 WP No. 11423 of 2025 MS BULLDING, BENGALURU 560 001 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DC COMPOUND, MANGALURU, D.K.-575 001 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANGALURU SUB-DIVISION, MANGALURU, D.K.-575 001 4. THE TAHSILDAR, MANGALURU TALUK, MANGALURU, D.K. -575 001 5. SMT. ASHA WAJ, MAJOR, W/O STANSILUS B VAS, R/AT SINDHURA, DR. KASHMIR MATHAIS ROAD, BIJAI, MANGALURU TALUK-575 004 6. SMT. IRENE NARONHA, MAJOR, W/O FEDRICK NARONHA, R/AT 2ND FLOOR, U P APARTMENTS, PANDESHWARA, MANGALURU-575 001 7. SMT. VIJAYALAXMI S SHETTY, MAJOR W/O LATE SEETHARAMA SHETTY, R/AT NEAR BENDOOR CIRCLE, MANGALORE, D.K.- 575 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 25.03.2025 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE IN C DIS/RAP31/2024 AS PER ANNX-A THE ORDER DTD 4.12.2023 PASSED BY THE ASST COMMISSIONER MANGALORE IN PROCEEDINGS NO. C DIS SA KA BHOO TI 1063/16-17 AS PER ANNX-A1 AND THE ORDER DTD 22.01.2024 PASSED BY THE ASST COMMISSIONER MANGALORE IN PROCEEDING NO. C DIS SA KA BHOO TI 1063/16-17 AS PER ANNX-A2, ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16117 WP No. 11423 of 2025 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. These facts are not in dispute: 2. The petitioners claim conferment of occupancy rights in respect of Sy.No.124 measuring 36 cents before the Land Tribunal and the Land Tribunal by an order dated 13.10.1987 conferred occupancy rights in respect of this particular land. However, this order was challenged before the Land Reforms Appellate Authority in LRAT No.19/1988 at the instance of Irin Noronha. The Appellate Tribunal by its order dated 19.12.1989, set aside the order of the Land Tribunal and rejected the claim of the petitioners. 3. Based on this order, the Tahsildar made an entry in the revenue records that the land was “Sarkari paramboke”. The petitioners preferred an appeal against the said order before the Assistant Commissioner, but the Assistant Commissioner - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16117 WP No. 11423 of 2025 dismissed the appeal on 11.08.1999. As against this, a revision was preferred, which was dismissed on 23.01.2001. 4. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court in W.P.No.6665/2001 and W.P.No.33770/1998, this Court by an order dated 20.06.2006 dismissed both the writ petitions in the following terms: “Under the above circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of the laches and it unnecessary to consider the contentions on merits of the case and when once it is held that the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in this petition challenging the entry made by the Tahasildar on the basis of the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority Mangalore dated 19.12.1989, which has been confirmed by the Ass.commissioner and the Deputy commissioner in the appeal and the revision, which is challenged in W.P 6665/2001, it is also liable to be dismissed as the entry made by the Tahasildar is on the basis of the order passed by the Appellate Authority which has become final. Therefore, the impugned order - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16117 WP No. 11423 of 2025 passed in the said writ petition also does not call for interference and this court will not exercise jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly writ petition are dismissed.” 5. It is therefore clear from the above undisputed facts that the claim of the petitioner in respect of Sy.No.124 measuring 36 cents was rejected and the further litigation initiated regarding the entry in the RTC that the said land was Sarkari Paramboke also stood concluded by the order passed by this Court. 6. However, the petitioners once again approached the Assistant Commissioner contending that the entry in the revenue records as “Sarkari” should be annulled. The Assistant Commissioner taking note of the aforementioned litigation came to the conclusion that in the light of the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority and the subsequent order passed by the Deputy Commissioner confirming the entries - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16117 WP No. 11423 of 2025 in the revenue records there was no merit in the appeal and he accordingly proceeded to dismiss the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Commissioner, a revision was preferred, but the Deputy Commissioner concurred with the said finding and dismissed the revision. As against these orders, the present writ petition has been filed. 7. Sri.Pundikai Ishwara Bhat, learned counsel strenuously contends that the entire proceedings initiated earlier would be non-est and without jurisdiction in the light of the stand that had been taken by the Land Tribunal before the Appellate Authority. He therefore submits that the impugned orders cannot be sustained and the same will have to be quashed. 8. As already narrated above, the claim made by the petitioners for conferment of occupancy rights, though initially granted, were subsequently set aside by the Appellate Authority. The said order has - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16117 WP No. 11423 of 2025 become final and conclusive. The subsequent litigation that was initiated regarding the entry of “Sarkari Paramboke” in the revenue records also stood concluded by the dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners. In the light of these undisputed facts, the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner were justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no merit in the appeal filed by the petitioners, in which a challenge was made to the enter of Government in the revenue records. 9. I find no reason to entertain this writ petition, this writ petition is therefore dismissed. 10. 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.: 22