- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5681 WP No. 85357 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 85357 OF 2013 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. VEERAYYA S/O. RUDRAYYA HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANDIGANAL, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SRI. REVANASIDDAYYA S/O. RUDRAYYA HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANDIGANAL, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. SRI. FAKKIRAYYA S/O. RUDRAYYA HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANDIGANAL, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DIST: DHARWAD. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5681 WP No. 85357 of 2013 2. THE DIRECTOR DISTRICT LAND SURVEY AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANT, DHARWAD, DISTRICT DHARWAD. 2. THE TASHILDAR KUNDGOL, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. SRI. CHANNABASAYYA S/O. GADIGEYYA HIREMATH, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MANDIGANAL, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. M.M. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4) ------- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 28/2/2012 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN REVISION/LR-8/2010-11 VIDE ANNEXURE – B, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5681 WP No. 85357 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 28.02.2012, passed by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, produced as per Annexure-B. 2. Heard Sri. Sunil S. Desai, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3 and Sri.M. M. Hiremath, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the materials on record. 3. The undisputed facts of the case are that; 3.1. The subject matter of the property i.e., Survey No.51 of Mandignal Village, was originally held by the predecessor in title of the petitioner and contesting respondent No.4. There was a partition in the family and it is stated that, on 27.07.1940, the said property was divided into - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5681 WP No. 85357 of 2013 Survey No.51/1 measuring 2.37 acres and Survey No.51/2 measuring 2.06 acres. Accordingly, M.E.No.421 was certified and it reflected in the revenue records, the said entries were in force from 27.07.1940. 3.2. It is stated that, only during 1971, respondent No.4 raised objection regarding the extent of land held by him as per M.E.No.421. Accepting the objection, M.E.No.474 was certified. 3.3. The petitioners herein have challenged the correctness of M.E.No.474. Considering the challenge, M.E.No.474 came to be cancelled, pursuant to the order dated 22.03.1972 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Thus, M.E.No.421, which was certified during 1940, was restored in the revenue records and also in the PT sheet. The said order was never challenged by respondent No.4. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5681 WP No. 85357 of 2013 3.4. Respondent No.4 filed the suit in O.S.No.9/2007 before the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Kumta, seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners, contending that Survey No.51/2 is measuring 2.20 acres and not 2.06 acres. He based his claim on M.E.No.474, which was already cancelled by the Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated 22.03.1972. When this fact was brought to the notice of the Civil Court in O.S.No.9/2007, the said suit came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 22.08.2009. 3.5. In the meantime, respondent No.4 approached respondent No.2 - DDLR, challenging M.E.No.421, which was certified in the year 1965-66. Respondent No.2 rejected the prayer to restore M.E.No.474 and confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner and restored M.E.No.421. In the said order, respondent - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5681 WP No. 85357 of 2013 No.2 specifically stated that the challenge to M.E.No.421 was after a long lapse of 44 years. The said order was challenged by respondent No.4 before the Deputy Commissioner, under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘the KLR Act’, for short). 4. I have gone through the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner produced as per Annexure-B. He has referred to the facts as narrated above in detail. The Deputy Commissioner has not disputed any of the facts which was reiterated in Annexure-A. However, in the concluding paragraph, the Deputy Commissioner referred to the variation in the extent of land and directed the Tahsildar to resurvey the property and correct the revenue records by allowing the revision, which is called in question before this Court. 5. When admittedly M.E.No.421 was certified in the year 1965-66, and the same was accepted by both - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5681 WP No. 85357 of 2013 the parties, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, Survey No.51/1 was measuring 2.37 acres and Survey No.51/2 was measuring 2.06 acres, as per partition between the brothers in the year 1965-66, cannot be disputed. Moreover, M.E.No.421, certified in the year 1965-66, was in force till 1971. For the first time during 1971, respondent No.4 raised the dispute contending that, he is in possession of 2.20 acres of land in Survey No.51/2. When the same was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner, an order dated 22.03.1972 was passed, canceling M.E.No.474 and ordered to restore M.E.No.421. Therefore, for all practical purposes, survey No.51/1 measures 2.37 acres and Survey No.51/2 measures 2.06 acres. 6. Strangely, respondent No.4 has accepted the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 22.03.1972, canceling M.E.No.474, but has filed a suit in O.S.No.9/2007, seeking permanent injunction in - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5681 WP No. 85357 of 2013 respect of Survey No.51/2 measuring 2.20 acres, on the basis of the cancelled M.E.No.474. Admittedly, the said suit came to be dismissed vide order dated 22.08.2009. It is thereafter, the impugned order dated 22.03.1972 canceling M.E.No.474, was challenged before respondent No.2 during 2010, i.e., after lapse of over 38 years. Respondent No.2 passed an order as per Annexure-A, discussing at length about the facts and rejecting the claim of respondent No.4. The Deputy Commissioner has not disputed any of the facts discussed by respondent No.2 in his order. However, without assigning any reasons, he directed the Tahsildar to resurvey the land once again and correct the extent of the land. 7. When M.E.No.474 is already cancelled, which is upheld by the DDLR, and when the Deputy Commissioner, does not find any reason to interfere with the same, he could not have directed the Tahsildar to resurvey the land once again and correct - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5681 WP No. 85357 of 2013 the extent of land. The only thing that is to be done in a natural course is that, M.E.No.421 certified during 1965-66 is to be restored, according to which, Survey No.51/1 measures 2.37 acres and Survey No.51/2 measures 2.06 acres. The same will have to be corrected in the revenue records, if any variation is found therein. The same cannot be a ground for directing the Tahsildar to resurvey the land once again, which give rise to a new dispute between the parties, which was never raised from 1965 till 1971, and from 1972 till 2010. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order requires to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. Writ Petition is allowed. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5681 WP No. 85357 of 2013 ii. The impugned order dated 28.02.2012, passed by respondent No.1, produced as per Annexure- A, is quashed. iii. Consequently, it is ordered that M.E.No.421 certified during 1965-66 in the revenue records, be restored. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5