- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3482 WP No. 100777 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.100777 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. NINGAPPA S/O MAHADEVAPPA MALAGI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O DEVAGIRI-YELLAPUR, NOW R/O JAVAHARA NAVODAYA VIDYALAYA MAHARAJPET, POST: KARGUDARI, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581104. 2. SUBHAS S/O MAHADEVAPPA MALAGI AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, R/O DEVAGIRI YELLAPUR, TQ. AND DIST. HAVERI-581110. 3. SMT. SUMA W/O RAJASHEKHAR KUDARIHAL AGE 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O DEVAGIRI YELLAPUR, TQ. ANDT DIST. HAVERI-581110. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI P.G.MOGALI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, TQ & DIST. HAVERI-581110. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, TQ AND DIST. HAVERI-581110. 3. VASANTH S/O MANESHWAR SANU AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O VIDYANAGAR EAST, 2ND CROSS, HAVERI, TQ AND DIST. HAVEI 581110. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.21 16:31:06 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3482 WP No. 100777 of 2024 4. BASAVARAJ S/ MAHADEVAPPA MALAGI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE, R/O DEVAGIRI-YALLAPUR, TQ AND DIST. HAVERI-581110. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M.M.KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, SRI. KINI N.S., ADVOCATE FOR R3, R-4 SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED. 14-12-2023 IN NO. R.T.S.RA/CR-89/2022-23 HAVERI PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN R.T.S.AP/128/2022 DT. 21-11-2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND ALLOW THE R.T.S/AP/128/2022, ALONG WITH COST THROUGH OUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: “Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 14-12-2023 in No. R.T.S.RA/CR- 89/2022-23 Haveri passed by the respondent No. 1 vide Annexure-E and the order passed by the respondent No. 2 in R.T.S.AP/128/2022 Dt. 21-11-2022 vide Annexure-D and allow the R.T.S/AP/128/2022, along with cost through out in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners being in possession of the land bearing - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3482 WP No. 100777 of 2024 Sy.No.74/2A measuring 7.30 acres of Devagiri- Yallapur village in Haveri taluka. Respondent No.2 had directed the entry of the name of respondent No.3 in both Form No.9 and 12. 3. Sri P.G.Mogli., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the entry of the name of respondent No.3 could be made in column No.9 as being the owner, but insofar as column No.12 is concerned, petitioners being in possession, their names could not have been deleted let alone without notice being issued to them. 4. In this regard, he relies upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in RFA No.4101/2013 C/w RFA Crob.No.100013/2014, more particularly para 32 thereof to contend that this Court had come to a conclusion that respondent No.3 was not in possession and confirmed the finding of the trial Court that the petitioners were in possession. As such, without obtaining possession of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3482 WP No. 100777 of 2024 property in a manner known to law, the question of entry of the name of respondent No.3 in a column No.12, which relates to cultivator right/possessory right, could not have been made. 5. Sri Kini N.S., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would submit that respondent No.3 being the owner and that ownership having been declared in a very same judgment in RFA No.4101/2013 C/w RFA Crob.No.100013/2014, possession follows title and as such, respondent No.3 is to be held to be in possession of the property and the entry made of the name of respondent No.3 in column No.12 is proper and correct, does not require any interference. 6. Heard the learned counsel Sri P.G.Mogli., learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri M.M.Khannur., learned AGA appearing for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri Kini N.S., learned - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3482 WP No. 100777 of 2024 counsel appearing for respondent No.3. Perused papers. 7. The suit in O.S.No.87/2011 was filed before Additional Senior Civil Judge, Haveri seeking for declaration of title and permanent injunction by petitioners herein against respondent No.3. The said suit having been decreed in totality an appeal to be filed by respondent No.3 in RFA No.4101/2013 C/w RFA Crob.No.100013/2014. When the said decree of the trial Court was set- aside and the suit was dismissed insofar as declaration of title by holding that defendant No.1 was a purchaser of the property and further holding the sale deed executed by the father of plaintiffs in favour of defendants was valid. 8. In so far as possession is concerned while dealing with the said matter at para-32, took into consideration that trial Court had come to conclusion that plaintiffs were in possession and - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3482 WP No. 100777 of 2024 this aspect was examined and this Court held that a recital in the said sale deed that possession was handed over alone could not be considered for holding the possession in the property to be with defendant No.1 therein i.e., respondent No.3 herein and as such, came to conclusion that the plaintiffs were in possession confirming the judgment of the trial Court. 9. A suit in O.S.No.434/2021 having been filed by respondent No.4 herein against respondent No.3. In the said suit, an application for injunction had been filed, which came to be rejected. Challenging the same, respondent No.4 filed an appeal in M.A.No.02/2022 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Haveri. In the said suit also, there is a finding at para-32 that the plaintiff therein having sold property, was required to handover the possession of the suit property. Thus, again - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3482 WP No. 100777 of 2024 categorically establishing that the plaintiff i.e., respondent No.4 was in possession. 10. There being a finding of this Court that the petitioners are in possession, on an application filed by respondent No.3 for entry of his name in column Nos.9 and 12, could not have been allowed in as much as, what has been confirmed by this Court in RFA No.4101/2013 C/w RFA Crob.No.100013/2014 is the title of respondent No.3 and not the possession. In fact, this Court having come to a conclusion that respondent No.3 is not in possession. 11. In that view of the matter, I pass following: ORDER i) Writ petition is partly allowed. ii) A certiorari is issued quashing the portion of the order dated 14.12.2023 in No.R.T.S.RA:C.R: 89/2022-23 passed by respondent No.1 at - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3482 WP No. 100777 of 2024 Annexure-E insofar as the entry of the name of respondent No.3 in column No.12, is concerned. iii) Respondent No.2 is directed delete tha name of respondent No3 and to cause the entry of the name of the petitioner in column No.12. The said deletion and entry to be made within a period of three weeks’ from date of receipt of certified copy of this order. iv) It is made clear that the name of respondent No.3 shall continue in column No.9. v) Liberty is reserved to respondent No.2 to file appropriate proceedings for possession. vi) In view of disposal of the writ petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM CT:GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27