- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5742 WP No. 110258 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 110258 OF 2015 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. S. VIJAYABHASKAR REDDY, S/O S NARASIMHAREDDY, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, 2. SRI. S SRINIVASA REDDY, S/O. S NARASIMHAREDDY, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, 3. SRI. S. SUDHAKAR REDDY S/O. S NARASIMHAREDDY, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, ALL ARE R/O: AMARAVATHI, 15TH WARD, DOOR NO. 432, NEAR CHANDRAMOULESHWARA TEMPLE, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANJAY S. KATAGERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, BY ITS SECRETARY, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5742 WP No. 110258 of 2015 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI DISTRICT, BALLARI. 3. THE SENIOR ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HOSAPETE SUB-DIVISION, HOSAPETE. DIST: BALLARI. 4. THE TAHSILDAR, HOSAPETE TALUK, HOSAPETE. DIST: BALLARI. 5. SRI. P.T. RUDRAPPA, S/O. K. VIRUPAKSHAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, R/O: PAPINAYAKANAHALLI, TQ: HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI. 6. SRI. P. RADHAKRISHNA BANDARKAR S/O. NARAYANA BANDARKAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O:C/O: U. PANDURANG NAYAK, NO. 366, 3RD MAIN CROSS ROAD, WARD NO. 31, NEHARU COLONY, HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI. 7. SMT. ANASUYAMMA W/O. DAYANANDREDDY, AGE:MAJOR, OCC:HOUSEWIFE, R/O: 24TH WARD, KANCHAGAR PETH HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI. 8. SRI. D. RAVINDRAGOUDA @ RAVINANDREDDY, AGE:MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: 24TH WARD, KANCHAGAR PETH HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; R5, R6, R7 AND R8 -SERVED) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5742 WP No. 110258 of 2015 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 22.01.2015, BEARING NO.A.VILE.NO.KUM/INAM/BHU SU/90,132/2012-13 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-R. 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 petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 22.01.2015, passed by respondent No.3-the Assistant Commissioner, produced as per Annexure-R. 2. Heard Sri. Sanjay S Katageri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that they originally owned the land bearing Survey No.129/C, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5742 WP No. 110258 of 2015 measuring 7 acres and 22 cents of Papinayakanahalli village, Hospete. This land was initially owned by Hanumanthgowda and others, who purchased it under the registered sale deed on 26.06.1944. They sold the land in favour of Sri.P.Radhakrishna Bhandarkar, as per registered sale deed dated 16.05.1979, who in turn sold the property to the petitioners under the registered sale deed dated 05.08.2010. Accordingly, the record of rights initially stood in the names of Hanumanthagowda and others. Subsequently, the name of Sri. P. Radhakrishna Bhandarkar and lastly, the name of the petitioner was entered in it. 4. It is further stated that respondent No.5 filed a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary contending that the land in question was an Inam land, and that, the sale deeds were executed illegally. The Deputy Commissioner referred the complaint to the Assistant Commissioner, Hospete for enquiry. After conducting enquiry, the Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned order as per Annexure-R, dated 22.12.2015, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5742 WP No. 110258 of 2015 holding that at one point of time, the land was the Inam land. The Inamdars Hanumanagoudgari Hanumanthagowda, Hanumanagudgari Subbangouda, Hanumanagoudgari Fakkirgouda had sold the property to Sri. P.Radhakrishna Bhandarkar under a registered sale deed dated 16.05.1979. It is stated that, the Pattadar - Sri. P.Radhakrishna Bhandarkar of the land in question was a minor at that time. Therefore, a disputed mutation was certified in the revenue records by entering the name of Narayan Bhandarkar, the father of the Sri. P.Radhakrishna Bhandarkar. The said Sri. P.Radhakrishna Bhandarkar sold the property in favour of the petitioners under the sale deed dated 05.08.2010 and accordingly applied for change of mutation. At that time, respondent No.5 filed objections before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar conducted an enquiry. However, respondent No.5 has not produced any documentary evidence supporting his claim. Consequently, his objections were rejected, and the names of the purchasers i.e. petitioners came to be entered in the revenue records. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5742 WP No. 110258 of 2015 5. The Assistant Commissioner set aside the said order by holding that the sale of the land is in violation of the provisions of Karnataka Certain Inam Abolition Act, 1977 (for short the Inam Act 1977) and directed the Tahsildar to take possession of the property as the same is vested in the Government. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. The materials on record disclose that initially Hanumanthagowda, Subbangouda and Fakkirgouda were the owners of the property, and it is stated that it was a Inam land. They admittedly sold the property in favour of Sri. P.Radhakrishna S/o. Narayan Bhandarkar under the registered sale dated 16.05.1979. 7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that Hanumanthagowda, Subbangouda and Fakkirgouda were Inamdaars. But, in fact they purchased the said land under registered sale deed dated 26.06.1944 from the earlier owner. There is reference to said sale deed dated 26.06.1944, in the subsequent sale deed that was executed in favour of the petitioners by the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5742 WP No. 110258 of 2015 subsequent purchaser-Sri. P Radhakrishnan Bhandarkar. When there were registered sale deeds since 1944, and the names of the purchasers were entered in the revenue records based on such sale deeds, I do not find any justification for the Assistant Commissioner to pass the impugned order. 8. It is not the contention of respondent No.5, who filed the objections before the Tashildar that, he ever claimed the land by filing declaration as required under the provisions of the Inam Act, 1977 nor he had challenged any of the registered sale deeds, or the mutation entries, which were certified right from 1944. It is not made clear as to what is the right of respondent No.5 over the land in question. Under such circumstances, the Assistant Commissioner was not justified in holding that, the land in question was an Inam land and it vested in the Government on the advent of the Inam Act, 1977 to take possession by the Tahsildar, Hospet. Evidently no right is conferred on respondent No. 5 under the impugned order. In spite of issuance of service of notice, respondent No.5 - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5742 WP No. 110258 of 2015 who filed the objections before the Tahsildar, has not appeared before the Court to contest the matter. 9. Considering all these facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that, the impugned order Annexure-R is passed without any basis and hence the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 22.01.2015, passed by respondent No.3, produced as per Annexure-R is quashed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7