- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4613 WP No. 69020 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 69020 OF 2010 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: DR. RAJASHEKHAR GUDLEPPA HALLIKERI, AGE: 46 YEARS, R/O. SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD REP. BY GPA HOLDER, SRI. SHIVANAGAPPA FAKKIRAPPA KORISHETTAR, AGE: 64 YEARS, R/O. SAPTAPUR, MICHIGIN COMPOUND, DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD SUB DIVISION, DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. THE TAHSHILDAR, DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD. 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD. 5. NAGAPPA KAREPPA BANADAVAR, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAREVVANA TOTA, MICHIGAN COMPOUND, SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4613 WP No. 69020 of 2010 6. 6.a) HANUMANTHAPPA KAREPPA BANADAVAR, BY LRS. SEETAVVA HANUMANTHAPPA BANADAVAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SAPTAPUR, KAREWWANA TOTA, MICHIGAN COMPOUND, DHARWAD. 6.b) MAHADEVI ISHWAR NAYAK, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SAPTAPUR, KAREWWANA TOTA, MICHIGAN COMPOUND, DHARWAD. 6.c) MANJULA D/O. HANUMANTHAPPA BANADAVAR, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SAPTAPUR, KAREWWANA TOTA, MICHIGAN COMPOUND, DHARWAD. 6.d) BASU S/O HANUMANTHAPPA BANADAVAR, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SAPTAPUR, KAREWWANA TOTA, MICHIGAN COMPOUND,DHARWAD. 7. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, SAPTAPUR, DHARWAD. *8. COMMISSIONER, TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY HUBLI-DHARWAD, HUBLI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4 & R7; R5, R6(A), R6(B), R6(C) & R6(D) – HELD SUFFICIENT; SRI. B. SHARANABASAVA, ADVOCATE FOR R8) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10/08/2010, PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN NO.RTS.RA.CR-31/2009-10, VIDE ANNEXURE-L. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: *Corrected vide court order dated 23.04.2025 Sd/- (MGUJ) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4613 WP No. 69020 of 2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 10.08.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner- respondent No.1, in RTS.RA.CR-31/2009-10, produced as per Annexure-L. 2. Heard Sri Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7 and Sri. B. Sharanabasava, learned counsel for respondent No.8. Perused the materials on record. 3. On hearing both the parties, it is found that the total extent of the disputed land Sy.No.54/1A of Saptapur Village Dharwad District was 3.23 acres. The petitioner is claiming that he had purchased Plot No.7 in the said survey number from one Madhwaraj Venkata Rao Gadeskar under the registered Sale Deed dated 11.06.1978. It is also the contention of the petitioner that respondent Nos.5 and 6 have claimed occupancy right in respect of Sy.No.54/1A referred to above. The Land Tribunal rejected their claim. But the Land Tribunal Appellate - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4613 WP No. 69020 of 2010 Authority allowed the appeal preferred by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in-part by granting occupancy right in respect of 2.01 acres of land as per order dated 17.01.1990, while rejecting their claim in respect of the remaining 1.22 acres of land. Learned counsel for the petitioner made it clear that the petitioner is not having any grievance with regard to the land measuring 2.01 acres in Sy.No.54/1A granted by the Land Reforms Appellate Authority in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. According to the petitioner, Plot purchased by him under the registered Sale Deed dated 11.06.1978 falls in the remaining 1.22 acres of land and the claim of respondent Nos.5 and 6 is already rejected by the Land Tribunal, and was confirmed by this Court in the revision petition i.e. LRRP No.1296/1990 vide order dated 01.09.1999, produced as per Annexure-C. Thus, it has reached finality. 4. Now it is stated that on the basis of confirmation of occupancy right in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6, the Tahsildar certified M.E.No.8662 as per his order dated 31.01.2002. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner who rejected the appeal as per Annexure-G. The petitioner challenged the said ME.No.8662 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4613 WP No. 69020 of 2010 before the Deputy Commissioner who passed the order as per Annexure-H, and remanded the matter to Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, in turn, remanded the matter to the Tahsildar as per Annexure-J dated 24.08.2009 directing him to issue notice to both parties for the purpose of holding enquiry, in accordance with law. The said order was challenged by respondent Nos.5 and 6 before the Deputy Commissioner who allowed the appeal as per Annexure- L and confirmed ME.No.8662 dated 24.08.2009. 5. Now the petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner confirming ME.No.8662 dated 24.08.2009. When the Land Tribunal Appellate Authority granted occupancy right in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of 2.01 acres of land in Sy.No.54/1A of Saptapur Village and the same was confirmed by this Court in LRRP.No.1296/1990, the petitioner cannot find any fault with M.E.No.8662. According to the petitioner, he purchased Plot No.7 under the registered Sale Deed dated 11.06.1978 which falls in the remaining 1.22 acres of land, in respect of which the Land Tribunal has rejected the claim of respondent Nos.5 and 6. If the Plot purchased by the petitioner - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4613 WP No. 69020 of 2010 falls in the remaining 1.22 acres of land, he cannot have any grievance against ME.No.8662 which is effected in respect of 2.01 acres of land which was allotted to respondent Nos.5 and 6 by the Land Tribunal Appellate Authority, and confirmed by this Court. 6. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the land falling under the remaining 1.22 acres in Sy.No.54/1A of Saptapur village is converted into non-agricultural land, and layout is formed, in which the petitioner had purchased Plot No.7. However, neither the copies of the sale deed, nor the conversion order are produced before this Court. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner and respondent No.8 submit that, the layout plan in respect of the non- agricultural land is approved as per order dated 21.08.1970, but the said layout plan does not depict the extent of land covered. The conversion order is not produced before the Court. Under such circumstances, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner who confirmed the Mutation Entry No.8662 which was effected, in accordance with the order of the Land - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4613 WP No. 69020 of 2010 Tribunal Appellate Authority, which was confirmed by this Court in LRRP No.1296/1990. Under such circumstances, I do not find any justification for the petitioner to challenge the order, and if at all, the petitioner has to identify his Plot, in the remaining 1.22 acres of land which is said to be already converted into non-agricultural land, and the layout is approved by respondent No.8. In that regard, the petitioner is at liberty to take necessary steps, in accordance with law if he is advised to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the very same matter is pending before the ADLR, Dharwad. If that is so, the petitioner is at liberty to pursue the same in accordance with law. But the petitioner is not entitled to claim any relief in this petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10