- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 60028 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 60028 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMAMURTHY S/O. LATE M. VEERANNA, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, SINCE DECEASED ON 12.08.2021 BY HIS LRS. 1A. SMT. PARVATHI W/O. JANGALI HOSAGERAPPA D/O. RAMAMURTHY, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. WARD NO.5, DEVARA MANI ONI, KUDATHINI, TQ: DIST: BALLARI. 1B. SMT. K. SHIVAGANGAMMA W/O. K. SHIVAPPA D/O. RAMAMURTHY, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. LINGADAHALLI ROAD, LEFT SIDE KODALU TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BALLARI. 1C. SMT. LAKSHMI DEVI W/O. VEERESHA V D/O. RAMAMURTHY, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: HOME MAKER, R/O. WARD NO.5, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 60028 of 2011 BENGALURU ROAD, NEAR BASAVANNA KATTER, TQ: DIST: BALLARI. 1D. SRI. M. BHEEMESH S/O. RAMAMURTHY AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. WARD NO.5, KUDITHINI TQ: DIST: BALLARI. 2. SRI. PAMPAPATHY S/O. LATE M. VEERANNA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, BOTH ARE R/O. BESIDE POST OFFICE KUDITHINI VILLAGE TQ: DIST: BELLARY. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELLARY SUB-DIVISION, BELLARY. 3. THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, KURUGODU, DIST: BELLARY. 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KURUGODU, DIST: BELLARY. 5. SRI. MURUNNI HALAPPA S/O. MALEPPA, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 60028 of 2011 AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BESIDE POST OFFICE, WARD NO.5, KUDITHINI VILLAGE, TQ and DIST: BELLARY. 6. SRI. MALEPPA S/O. M.ERANNA, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BESIDE POST OFFICE, KUDITHINI VILLAGE, TQ and DIST: BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR JOSHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.P. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6) ---- THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTION QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 11/10/2010 IN CASE NO.KUM.APPEAL/159/2009-10 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ONLY IN SO FAR IT PERTAINS TO ORDERING TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE RESPONDENT NO.6 JOINTLY WITH THE PETITIONERS, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C. 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 60028 of 2011 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 11.10.2010 passed by respondent No.1-the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary District, produced as per Anenxure-C. 2. Heard Sri Hanumanthareddy Sahukar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri. Krishna Kumar Joshi, for Sri. V.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6. Perused the materials on record. 3. The dispute between the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 and 6 is in respect of 3.15 acres of land comprised in Sy.Nos.875B/1 of Kudithini village, Bellary Taluk and District. This property was the family property and there was a partition in the family. It is stated that in the said partition, the property in question was allotted to the share of the mother of petitioners and respondent No.6. These facts are not in dispute. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that respondent No.5 being the son of respondent No.6, concocted a document styled as ‘wardi’ given by the mother of the petitioners and - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 60028 of 2011 respondent No.6, addressed to Tahsildar to mutate the name of respondent No.5 in respect of the disputed property. Based on such concocted document, the Tahsildar has certified M.E.No.325/2006-07 on 20.12.2006. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred an appeal before respondent No.2-the Assistant Commissioner, Bellary. The Assistant Commissioner passed the order dated 11.12.2009, produced as per Annexure-B, and ordered to enter only the names of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in respect of the disputed land by observing that respondent No.6 had already given up his claim in favour of the petitioners. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the said order was not challenged by respondent No.6. But the fact remains that, respondent No.6 was not a party in the proceedings i.e. in the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner was binding on respondent No.6. 6. Admittedly respondent No.5, who is a party to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, challenged the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 60028 of 2011 same before the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary by preferring an appeal. The Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order, directing to enter the names of the petitioners to the property in question along with the name of respondent No.6. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. It was the contention of the petitioners that, respondent No.6 had given up his claim in their favour on 20.03.1991. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioners had taken sufficient time to produce the document in support of his contention, nothing has been produced before this Court. Therefore, in the absence of any written document, registered in accordance with law, it cannot be concluded that respondent No.6 had given up his claim or released his share in the disputed property in favour of the petitioners. 8. On going through the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, he has analysed the contentions of both the parties and passed the impugned order directing to enter the names of the petitioners in respect of the disputed land along with the name of respondent No.6. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6242 WP No. 60028 of 2011 9. The Mother of the petitioners and respondent No.6 by name, Bheemakka admittedly got the property in the family partition. The said Bheemakka died on 09.08.2007, and after her death, necessarily the property would devolve on her three sons i.e. petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and respondent No.6. Under such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4