- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:168 WP No. 43963 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 43963 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAJU SHETTY S/O PUTTAPPA SHETTY AGE 55 YEARS R/AT BELANDUR VILLAGE KAREHALLI HOBLI, HOSANGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. KIRAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA SHIMOGA DIST.-577201. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SAGARA SUB-DIVISION SAGARA, SHIMOGA DIST. 3. SRI. SHEKHARAPPA S/O LATE SOMANNA MAJOR R/A BELANDUR VILLAGE KAREHALLI HOBLI, HOSANGARA TALUK SHIVAMOGA DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. RAVI .V, ADVOCATE FOR R3) Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:168 WP No. 43963 of 2019 THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN NO.R.MISC.NO.9/2015-16 ON THE FILE OF R-1 AUTHORITY AND ALSO IN R.A.NO.28/2007-08 ON THE FILE THE R-2 AUTHORITY, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 AUTHORITY IN R.MISC.NO.9/2015-16, BEING TOTALLY ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS, OPPOSED TO LAW EQUITY AND JUSTICE (ANNX-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner evidenced at Annexure-A on the ground that Deputy Commissioner has entertained the revision petition without impleading the petitioner who is a necessary party to the proceedings. 2. The facts leading to the case are as under: The subject matter of this petition is agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.63 corresponding New Sy.No.70 measuring 5 acres and Sy.No.51 corresponding New Sy.No.69 measuring 4 acres situated at Belandur Village. The lands in question were admittedly granted to one - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:168 WP No. 43963 of 2019 Naganna S/o Mananna and Durga S/o Jenukalla. Petitioner is tracing title through registered sale deed dated 06.04.1964 obtained by the petitioner's father from the original grantee. The jurisdictional Tahsildar taking cognizance of the resumption order which attained finality against the petitioner ordered to mutate the name of one Somanna who claims to be a distinct relative of the original grantee. 3. Petitioner herein feeling aggrieved by the impugned mutation assailed the same before the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner by filing an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Assistant Commissioner having noticed that private respondent No.3's father Somanna has no right in the property, though set aside the disputed mutation but, however, directed the Tahsildar to take appropriate action and restore the disputed lands in the name of Government. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:168 WP No. 43963 of 2019 4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.3 preferred a revision under Section 136(3) as Assistant Commissioner was of the view that the property should vest with the Government and respondent No.3's father being a distinct relative cannot assert title and his name cannot be mutated post restoration order passed under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner reiterating the grounds has vehemently argued and tried to persuade this Court that the order of the respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner in entertaining a revision without impleading petitioner is fundamentally flawed and therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed only on the ground that the petitioner was not heard in the matter. Though this appears to be impressive, however, this Court is not inclined to accede to the said contention. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:168 WP No. 43963 of 2019 6. Upon a thorough examination of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, it becomes evident that the petitioner is significantly more adversely affected by the said order. While respondent No.3 is also impacted to an extent owing to the Assistant Commissioner's determination that the land should vest with the Government on the ground that the original grantee is deceased and has left no legal heirs, the repercussions of the order are far more detrimental to the petitioner. Specifically, the Assistant Commissioner’s decision effectively strips the petitioner of any rights over the disputed land. Consequently, it was imperative for the petitioner to challenge this order to safeguard their interests. 7. In this context, the Court observes that the revision petition filed by respondent No.3 primarily addressed a limited aspect of the Assistant Commissioner’s order. The grievance raised by respondent No.3 was confined to challenging the portion of the order - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:168 WP No. 43963 of 2019 where it was held that the land should vest with the Government rather than respondent No.3, and that respondent No.3 was not entitled to restoration of possession. However, the order as a whole has a broader and more profound impact on the petitioner, as it directly deprives them of their rights over the petition land. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to actively contest the Assistant Commissioner’s order, given its far- reaching implications on their ownership and possession of the land in question. 8. Therefore, this Court is of the view that petitioner was not at all a necessary party as revision filed by the respondent No.3 was to the limited extent questioning only the operative portion of the order. Petitioner herein having failed to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner evidenced at Annexure-D, has no locus to challenge the subsequent order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on a revision filed by respondent No.3 under Section 136(3). - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:168 WP No. 43963 of 2019 9. The respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner was not inclined to accede to the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner regarding respondent No.3's relation with the original grantee. The Deputy Commissioner was of the view that Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to decide the respondent No.3's relation with the original grantee. Therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in setting aside the Assistant Commissioner's order does not in stricto sense affect petitioner's right. Petitioner had already suffered an order at the hands of the Assistant Commissioner. Having failed to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, this Court is of the view that petitioner was not at all a necessary party to the revision proceedings initiated by the respondent No.3 questioning the order of the Assistant Commissioner to the limited extent. 10. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner persuaded this Court to grant liberty to - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:168 WP No. 43963 of 2019 challenge the original resumption order in the manner known to law. 11. This Court is of the view that the petitioner need not seek liberty. He has every right to challenge the order passed by the coordinate Bench in the manner known to law. It is made clear that the order passed by this Court will not be an impediment for the petitioner to assail the order passed in the original proceedings initiated under Sections 4 and 5 of the PTCL Act. 12. With these observations, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 41