- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5874 WP No. 109968 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 109968 OF 2016 (KLR) BETWEEN: SMT. SAVITHA NAGAPPA HEGDE, W/O. NAGAPPA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT HOSAKULI VILLAGE, HONNAVARA TALUK UTTARAKANNADA DISTRICT-581334. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ANOOP G. DESHAPANDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M. S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT KARWAR-581301. 3. TAHASILDAR HONNAVARA TALUK, UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581334. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 21.01.2015 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NO.RB/RTR/CR-35/14-15 WHICH IS PRODUCED ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-F ON MERITS AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5874 WP No. 109968 of 2016 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 21.01.2015, passed by Respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, produced as per Annexure-A, and for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct Respondent No.2 to consider the application filed by the petitioner at Annexure-F. 2. Heard Sri.Anoop G. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for the respondents. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that; 3.1. The land measuring 30 guntas in Survey No.214/A1A1A1A1A1 situated at Hosakuli - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5874 WP No. 109968 of 2016 Village, Hannavara Taluk, was being cultivated by the petitioner since more than 45 years. Since then, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the same, by developing the land by planting cashew nut plants by spending huge amounts. He filed an application before Respondent No.2 for grant of land. Considering the same, the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, passed the order as per Annexure-B, dated 26.11.1996, granting 30 guntas of land in favour of the petitioner. 3.2. Being aggrieved by the same, one Ramchandra Mahadev Lokeshwar, preferred an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (‘the KAT’, for short), challenging Annexure-B. After hearing both the parties, the KAT passed the order dated 31.12.1998 and remanded the matter back to Respondent No.2, upon which, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5874 WP No. 109968 of 2016 Respondent No.2 passed the order as per Annexure-D, canceling the grant made in favor of the petitioner and reserving the land in question for public purpose. 3.3. Even though the petitioner has approached the KAT challenging the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the appeal came to be dismissed on 23.02.2001. 3.4. The petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.33507/2001, challenging the order of the KAT as well as the order dated 15.11.1997, passed by respondent No.2. During the pendency of the writ petition, a memo was filed seeking liberty to withdraw the petition and reserving liberty to the petitioner to workout his remedy before the competent authority. Accordingly, the writ petition came to be dismissed with liberty as prayed for. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5874 WP No. 109968 of 2016 3.5. The petitioner had once again approached Respondent No.2 by filing an application on 07.07.2014. The Deputy Commissioner, by issuing the endorsement as per Annexure-E, rejected the claim of the petitioner, solely on the ground that it is time-barred. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The facts narrated above disclose that, the Deputy Commissioner has passed a reasoned order as per Annexure-D on 15.11.1997, canceling the grant made in favor of the petitioner and reserving the land for public purposes. Even though the said order was challenged before the KAT, the said appeal came to be dismissed. The petitioner, who had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.33507/2001, unilaterally withdrew the said petition as not pressed, with liberty to work out his remedy before the competent authority. Accordingly, the petition came to be dismissed on 14.12.2001. The petitioner has once - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5874 WP No. 109968 of 2016 again approached the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, by filing the application on 07.07.2014, i.e., after a lapse of about 14 years. There is absolutely no reason for this inordinate delay in approaching the Deputy Commissioner once again. Moreover, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the order as per Annexure-D by assigning reasons, which was confirmed by the KAT. When the petitioner had approached this Court by filing the writ petition and had unilaterally withdrawn the petition to workout his remedy elsewhere, he could not have approached the Deputy Commissioner once again, who cannot review his own order, which was already passed on merits. 5. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was right in issuing the endorsement at Annexure-A, stating that the application of the petitioner is time-barred. In fact, it is time-barred as the same was filed after long lapse of 15 years from the date of the order at - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5874 WP No. 109968 of 2016 Annexure-D and 14 years after withdrawing the writ petition before this Court. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Commissioner should have considered the representation of the petitioner once again on merits, cannot be accepted, as there was no need for the Deputy Commissioner to enquire into the matter again and again only because the petitioner has chosen to file application after applications. There was absolutely no reason as to why the writ petition No.33507/2001 was withdrawn without prosecuting the same on merits. 7. Under such circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition. Moreover, the prayer made by the petitioner for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus, to consider the representation produced as per Annexure-F, dated 07.07.2014 afresh, also cannot be considered, since the order on similar representation was already passed as per Annexure- - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5874 WP No. 109968 of 2016 D. Hence, I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16