Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 27970 (KAR)

SRI. SHEKAR. S v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/17527/2025 · 2025-07-07

E S Indiresh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24403 WP No. 17527 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 17527 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SHEKAR. S S/O LATE. SHANMUKAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/O KUNDAWADA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, DAVANAGERE TALUK DAVANAGERE-577 566. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GUTHAL S.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-560 056. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISION, DAVANAGERE-560 056. 4. THE TAHSILDAR DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE-560 056. Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24403 WP No. 17527 of 2025 5. SRI. A. SURESH BABU S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA 6. SRI. A. PRAKASH S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA 7. SRI. A. BASAPPA S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA 8. SRI. A. SHIVASHANKAR S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA 9. SRI. A. BEERAPPA S/O VIRUPAKSHAPPA 10. SRI. A. SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE SIDAPPA 11. SRI. A. RUDRA GOWDA S/O LATE ARUNDI VEERAPPA 12. SRI. DHARMARAJ S/O LATE ARUNDI VEERAPPA 13. SRI. PRAKASH S/O CHANNAVEERAPPA 14. SRI. A.D. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O LATE . DEVENDRAPPA 15. SMT. SHANTHAMMA W/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAPPA 16. SMT. SINDHU D/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAPPA 17. SMT. MANGALA D/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAPPA 18. SRI. A.V VEERESH S/O LATE VIRUPAKSHAPPA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24403 WP No. 17527 of 2025 19. SRI HALESHAPPA S/O SIDDAVEERAPPA 20. SMT. VASANTHAMMA W/O LATE. VIRUPAKSHAPPA (THE RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 20 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NEW KUNDAVADA VILLAGE, DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT). 21. SMT. RADHIKA D/O EERANNA 22. SMT. K.S. SUDHA W/O SHRIPADA RAO (THE RESPONDENTS NO.21 TO 22 ARE ALL RESIDING AT NEW KUNDAVADA, DAVANAGERE TALUK). DAVANAGERE-577 566. 23. SRI. S. SURESH S/O SESHACHALA R/O #609/1, 1ST MAIN, 15TH CROSS, K.T.J. NAGAR DAVANAGERE-577 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH BABURAO, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SANTHOSH R. NELKUDRI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5, 6, 8 TO 13, 15, 18 TO 13) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 04.04.2025 PASSED THE R2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE IN NO. RA.CR.20/2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-K. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24403 WP No. 17527 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.Santhosh R.Nelkudri, learned Counsel submits that he has filed caveat on behalf of respondents No.5, 6, 8 to 20. 2. Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 3. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 04.04.2025 (Annexure ‘K’) passed by respondent No.2 remanding the matter to respondent No.4 to take decision in the matter with regard to change of entry in the mutation register. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that respondent No.2 ought to have remanded the matter to respondent No.3, as the mutation is already existing insofar as the land in question is concerned, I have given - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24403 WP No. 17527 of 2025 my anxious consideration to the finding recorded by respondent No.2 at paragraph No.6 to 9, which makes it clear that there is no tally in respect of the extent of land mentioned in the pahani as well as the Akarband. 4. In that view of the matter, respondent No.2 has rightly remanded the matter to respondent No.4 with a direction to comply with regard to entering the names of the parties in the mutation register. 5. In that view of the matter, since this Court has limited jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the order of remand made by the respondent-authorities, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in this writ petition. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE JT/- CT:SM