THIRUPATEPPA S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA v. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER
WP/72441/2012 · 2025-11-13
Anant Ramanath Hegde
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38631 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 38631 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15538 WP No. 72441 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 72441 OF 2012 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1.
SRI. THIRUPATEPPA S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND ARCHAKA,
2.
SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA S/O. BHIMARAYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND ARCHAKA,
3.
SRI. YANKOBA S/O. DODDAYANKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND ARCHAKA,
4.
SMT. MALLAMMA W/O. ANJANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
5.
SRI. DEVANNA S/O. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND ARCHAKA,
6.
SRI. SURESH S/O. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND ARCHAKA,
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.11.21 11:41:31 +0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15538 WP No. 72441 of 2012
7.
SMT. AMARAMMA W/O. THIMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
8.
SRI. BHIMARAYAPPA S/O. RUDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND ARCHAKA,
9.
SMT. LAKSHMI W/O. MUDUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
ALL ARE R/O. ACHARNARASAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.
… PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.S. YADRAMI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL SUB-DIVISION, KOPPAL.
2.
THE TAHSILDAR, GANGAVATHI, DIST: KOPPAL.
3.
THE LAND TRIBUNAL, GANGAVATHI, BY ITS SECRETARY.
4.
SMT. LACHMAMMA @ LAXMAMMA W/O. LANKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. ACHARNARASAPUR NOW AT HOSALLI, TQ: KUSTAGI, DIST: KOPPAL.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. S.V. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15538 WP No. 72441 of 2012
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BEARING NO.KANDAYA/HOA/10-11/12 DATED 10.01.2012 AS ILLEGAL AT ANNEXURE-H; ISSUE A WRIT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER NO.SR/RRT/71/95-96 AND 73/95-96 AND 74/95-96 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 15.03.1997 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AS ILLEGAL; ISSUE A WRIT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.RRT/3/97-98 DATED 28.05.2002 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-E; ISSUE A WRIT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO. KANDAYA/RRT/TAKARARU/11-12/30 DATED 31.12.2011 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ISSUE A WRIT OR OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO HOLD CORRECT ENQUIRY OF FORM NO.1 FILED BY THE DECEASED LANKAPPA BHIMARAYAPPA OF ACHARNARASAPUR VILLAGE, IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.85 MEASURING 13 ACRES 03 GUNTAS OF GANGAVATHI TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT AND PASS AN ORDER CLARIFYING THAT THE GRANT OF OCCUPANCY RIGHTS IS TO THE JOINT FAMILY OF LANKAPPA CONSISTING OF HIS BROTHER. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15538 WP No. 72441 of 2012
ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
The petition is filed assailing the orders passed by Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner quashing the mutation entry in favour of the petitioners and also the 'no objection certificate' issued by the Assistant Commissioner, which is dated 10.01.2012 and marked at Annexure - H.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners would raise the following contentions: (i) that one Lankappa had filed Form No. 1 seeking re-grant of the land and his father Bhimarayappa was the head of the family comprising four brothers and after the death of Lankappa, his wife is claiming absolute right over the properties on the premise that properties are exclusively granted to Lankappa; (ii) that the property records were standing in the name of Bhimarayappa and his brothers way back in 1973. Merely because Form No.1 is filed by Lankeppa, the son of Bhimarayappa, it cannot be construed as an exclusive grant. - 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15538 WP No. 72441 of 2012
(iii) that after the death of Lankappa, mutation is certified in the names of all the brothers of Bhimarayappa entered in the property records. However, later, wife of Lankappa claimed that all the properties are her exclusive properties and challenged the mutation.
Same was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and the matter was remitted to Tashildar. Tahsildar in turn passed the order to enter the name of only Lachmamma. That
order is not called in question by filing an appeal. The order of the Assistant Commissioner remanded the matter and same is challenged before this Court. (iv) In addition to that since the 'no objection certificate' was issued by the Assistant Commissioner to alienate the property, same is also questioned.
3. The Writ Petition records would indicate that a suit is filed by the petitioners for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.25/2011 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Gangavathi. Whether the properties are the joint family properties or the individual property of the Form No. 1 - applicant is a question to be decided by the competent Civil Court based on the evidence to be placed on record before it.
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15538 WP No. 72441 of 2012
4. Therefore this Court does not intend to enter into the merits of the claim. The Civil Court shall decide as to whether the property is the joint family property or the individual property.
5. Hence the following:
ORDER (i) Writ Petition is dismissed. (ii) It is made clear that merely because the Writ Petition is dismissed, it should not be construed as having expressed opinion on the merits of the claim of either of the parties. (iii) All questions kept open to be adjudicated in a Civil Court.
Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE
BRN CT:BCK LIST NO.: 2 SL NO.: 11