- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3955 WP No. 29404 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.29404 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. CHOWDAREDDY S/O LATE CHIKKA CHOWDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, 2. SMT. MUTHAMMA W/O K R VENKATESH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, 3. SRI. CHOWDAPPA S/O NARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, 4. SRI. CHOWDAREDDY S/O LATE NANJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT, SOLAMAKALAPALLI VILLAGE, MITTEMARI HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561207. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. P.P. HEGDE, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ANJANEYA A.B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3955 WP No. 29404 of 2024 AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CHIKKABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA TALUK OFFICE, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 562101. 3. SRI P H PRAKASH RAO S/O LATE P N HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT NEAR GEETHA MANDIRA 19TH WARD, BAGEPALLI TOWN, CHIKKABALLAPUR DISTRICT. 4. 5. SRI S SATHYANARAYANA RAO S/O LATE P N SUBBA RAO, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT THUMMEPALLI VILLAGE, MITTEMARI POST AND HOBLI, BAGEPALLI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT -561207. THE TAHASILDAR BAGEPALLI TALUK BAGEPALLI CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT - 561 207. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH K., HCGP FOR R1, R2 AND R5; NOTICE TO R3 AND R4 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT THE PROCEEDINGS VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY GIVING SUFFICIENT - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3955 WP No. 29404 of 2024 TIME AND OPPORTUNITIES TO THE PETITIONERS TO REPRESENT AND DEFEND THEIR CASE BY STRICTLY ADOPTING THE PROCEDURE AND RULES AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER CPC AND KLR ACT AND RULES, BY CONSIDERING THE ANNEXURE- D, G AND J DATED 14.02.2024, 30.09.2024 AND 14.10.2024 RESPECTIVELY; AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed seeking appropriate directions at the hands of this Court on the ground that respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner without securing the legal heirs of deceased respondent Nos.1 and 3 is hurriedly passing orders. Reliance is placed on order dated 28.10.2024. 2. Petitioners primary objection is that appeal under Section 136(2) is filed after inordinate delay of 35 years. The second objection raised by the petitioner before this Court is that unless all the legal heirs of respondent Nos.1 and 3 are brought on record, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3955 WP No. 29404 of 2024 respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner cannot proceed with the mater on merits. 3. Per contra, learned HCGP appearing for the State would point out that the details of the legal heirs of respondent Nos.1 and 3 were not furnished before respondent No.2/Assistant Commissioner till this date. However, a memo is filed for the first time before this Court. 4. Having carefully examined the records, this Court finds that there exist certain procedural lapses and infractions, as discernible from the order sheet. However, in light of the details furnished regarding the legal heirs of respondent Nos.1 and 3, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.2, the Assistant Commissioner, must ensure that the appellant takes necessary steps by filing appropriate applications in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the law. It is imperative that the appellant before respondent No.2 takes appropriate steps to bring the proposed legal representatives of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:3955 WP No. 29404 of 2024 deceased respondents on record by filing formal applications seeking their substitution. Only upon the proper filing and adjudication of such applications can the Assistant Commissioner proceed further with the case. Moreover, any arguments regarding the existence of an inordinate delay in initiating these proceedings, as well as the substantive merits of the case, can be taken up for consideration only after the completion of service of notice to all the proposed legal representatives and after affording them an opportunity to present their objections, if any. 5. It is further clarified that since the petitioners have raised a specific objection regarding the issue of limitation pointing out that the disputed mutation is being challenged after a prolonged delay of 35 years, it is a well- established principle of law that no authority can delve into the merits of a case without first addressing the preliminary issue of delay. Therefore, before proceeding any further, the Assistant Commissioner is required to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:3955 WP No. 29404 of 2024 examine and adjudicate upon the objections raised by the petitioners concerning the delay. Only after a proper determination of whether the delay has been sufficiently explained and whether the challenge is maintainable under the law can the matter be considered on its substantive merits. 6. With these observations, the captioned petition stands disposed of. Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26