- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5814 WP No. 146624 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.146624 OF 2020 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. VISHALAKSHAMMA W/O. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O : JIRALKALGUDI, TQ: GANGAVATHI, DIST : KOPPAL, REPT.BY GPA HOLDER, SRI. SRINIVAS S/O. SUBBURAO, R/O: JIRALKALGUDI, TQ : GANGAVATHI, DIST : KOPPAL – 583227. …PETITIONER (BY SHRI K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DIST. KOPPAL – 583231. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SURVEY DEPARTMENT, SUB-DIVISION ‘JILLADALITA BHAVAN’, KOPPAL Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5814 WP No. 146624 of 2020 DIST : KOPPAL – 583231. 3. THE TAHSILDAR GANGAVATHI, TQ : GANGAVATHI, DIST : KOPPAL – 583227. 4. NALLARI SATHYANARAYANA S/O. ANAND AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, HANAVALCHAMP, TQ. GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL – 583227. 5. SMT. SHESHAMANI W/O. SUBARAO, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE and HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O : JIRALKALGUDI, TQ : GANGAVATHI, DIST : KOPPAL – 583227. 6. SIDDARAMAPPA S/O. RACHAPPA SINCE DECEASED. RESPONDENT NO. 7 & 8 ARE THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE DECEASED RESPONDENT NO.6 AS PER THE ORDER DATED 03.01.2023. 7. MALLIKARJUNAPPA S/O. SIDDARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5814 WP No. 146624 of 2020 R/O : ISLAMPUR, TQ : GANGAVATHI, DIST : KOPPAL – 583227. 8. SHANTHAMURTHY S/O. SIDDARAMMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC : AGRICULTURE, R/O : ISLAMPUR, TQ : GANGAVATHI, DIST : KOPPAL – 583227. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SHRI P. S. MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R7 & R8 (THROUGH VC) NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.4- - HELD SUFFICIENT; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.5 –DISPENSED WITH; RESPONDENT NO.6 – DECEASED; RESPONDENT NOS.7 & 8 ARE LR’S OF DECEASED R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.12.2019 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.KHAM/APPEAL/43/2010-11/6790 AS PER ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION AND TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.09.2010 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.BHU U V/ TANTRIKA/ITARE/2010-11 AS PER ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5814 WP No. 146624 of 2020 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition seeking issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 12.12.2019 and 15.09.2010 passed by respondent No.1, the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal, produced as per Annexures-A and H respectively. 2. Heard Shri K. Anandkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State and Shri P. S. Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 and 8. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that her father purchased 4 acres 30 guntas of land in Sy.No.45/1J of Jeerala Kalgudi village of Gangavathi taluk in Koppal district, under a registered sale deed. Subsequently, there was a partition in the family as per Annexure-B, and the disputed property fell to the share of the petitioner. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5814 WP No. 146624 of 2020 4. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent Nos.6 to 8 filed an application before the Tahsildar to survey the land for the purpose of fixing the boundary of their land in Sy.No.45/2, 3 and 5. The Tahsildar vide order dated 15.09.2006 permitted the survey of the land for the purpose of fixing the boundary. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner, who confirmed the order of the Tahsildar by passing the order dated 12.06.2007. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, who passed the order as per Annexure-F. 5. Annexure-F is the order dated 01.07.2010. It discloses that, with the consent of both the parties the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal ordered for resurvey of land in Sy.No.45. Admittedly the said order has reached finality as none of the parties have challenged it. 6. Annexure-H, is the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal dated 15.09.2010, directing survey of the land bearing survey number 45/A, B, C, D and to - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5814 WP No. 146624 of 2020 mark the encroachment. Admittedly this order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing W.P.No.64597/2011. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the petitioner was successful in getting the decree in his favour in O.S.No.114/2011 which was filed for seeking permanent injunction against present respondent Nos.6 to 8. Being satisfied with the decree, the petitioner had withdrawn the W.P.No.64597/2011. It was an unconditional withdrawal of the writ petition filed for challenging Annexure-H as produced in this writ petition. 7. After withdrawing the writ petition unconditionally, the petitioner once again approached the Deputy Commissioner challenging the very same order Annexure-H. Upon which, the impugned order vide Annexure-A, came to be passed. 8. The Admitted facts of the case are that, the petitioner is the decree holder in O.S.No.114/2011 filed for permanent injunction against the contesting respondents. It is stated that the said decree has reached finality. It is - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5814 WP No. 146624 of 2020 also stated that the contesting respondents have filed the suit in O.S.No.142/2008 before the Trial Court, seeking declaration of their title and permanent injunction. The said suit came to be dismissed as per Annexure-L. Admittedly, the petitioner accepted Annexure-H by withdrawing the earlier writ petition. Thus, Annexure-H has reached finality. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot once again seek review of Annexure-H before the Deputy Commissioner, and file the present petition being aggrieved by the order passed on such review petition. Therefore, I do not find any merits in the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM: paras 1 to 7 VB: paras 8 to end. CT:ANB : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16