- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6380 WP No. 102132 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 102132 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. BEERAPPA ADIVEPPA MADIHALLI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KABBUR VILLAGE, NAGARAMUNNOLI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591201. 2. VITTAL YALLAPPA HALLUR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KABBUR VILLAGE, NAGARAMUNNOLI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591201. 3. SIDDARAM SIDDAPPA GHIWARI, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KABBUR VILLAGE, NAGARAMUNNOLI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI– 591201. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6380 WP No. 102132 of 2021 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BENGALURU – 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI – 590003. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKODI- 591201. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, CHIKKODI 591201. 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, NAGARMUNNOLI - 591201. SIDDARAM S/O. GANGAPPA BADAD, SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS. 6. LAGAMAVVA D/O. SIDDARAM BADAD AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KABBUR VILLAGE, NAGARAMUNNOLI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591201. 7. SIDDAPPA S/O. SIDDARAM BADAD AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KABBUR VILLAGE, NAGARAMUNNOLI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591201. 8. MARUTI S/O. SIDDARAM BADAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KABBUR VILLAGE, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6380 WP No. 102132 of 2021 NAGARAMUNNOLI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591201. 9. PUNDLIK S/O. SIDDARAM BADAD AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KABBUR VILLAGE, NAGARAMUNNOLI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591201. 10. LAXMAN S/O. SIDDARAM BADAD AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KABBUR VILLAGE, NAGARAMUNNOLI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591201. SHANKAR DHONDU BADAD SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY LEGAL HEIRS 11. NAGAPPA S/O. SHANKARAPPA BADAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KABBUR VILLAGE, NAGARAMUNNOLI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591201. 12. PUNDLIK S/O. SHANKARAPPA BADAD AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KABBUR VILLAGE, NAGARAMUNNOLI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591201. 13. AJJAPPA S/O. SHANKARAPPA BADAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6380 WP No. 102132 of 2021 R/O: KABBUR VILLAGE, NAGARAMUNNOLI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591201. 14. DUNDAPPA RAMAPPA BADAD AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KABBUR VILLAGE, NAGARAMUNNOLI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591201. 15. MAHADEV RAMAPPA BADAD AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KABBUR VILLAGE, NAGARAMUNNOLI, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. DEEPAK S. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR C/R10 & C/R12; SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADV. FOR R6, R7, R8, R9, R11, R13, R14 & R15) ------ THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: 1. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16/03/2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RB/RTA/14/ 2014-2015 VIDE ANNEXURE J. 2. ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12/06/2013 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN MISC/AP-153/2012-13 VIDE ANNEXURE H. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6380 WP No. 102132 of 2021 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 16.03.2021, passed by respondent No.2-the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, produced as per Annexure-J and the order dated 12.06.2013 passed by respondent No.3-the Assistant Commissioner, produced as per Annexure-H. 2. Heard Sri. Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 5, Sri. Deepak S. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent Nos.10 and 12 and Sri.Santosh B. Rawoot, learned counsel for respondent Nos.6 to 9, 11, 13, 14 and 15. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that, petitioner and contesting respondent Nos.6 to 16 were family members. Initially, the area measuring 22.28 acres of land in Survey No.5 of Kabbur Village, was granted in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6380 WP No. 102132 of 2021 favor of their predecessor-in-title in the year 1966. Later, 6 acres of land was given up by the grantee for construction of a Government Hospital. An area measuring 2.26 acres was a pot karab. Therefore, 14.02 acres was available with the family. 4. It is contended that, during 1970, a joint wardi was given to enter the names of the occupants. In 1990, an area measuring 26 gunta was given to Gram Panchayat. Thereafter, phot hissa was effected. In 1994, M.E.No.12777 was effected on the basis of KJP. According to which, 7 hissas were effected. Admittedly, none of the parties have challenged M.E.No.12777, which was certified on the basis of KJP. 5. Now it is the contention of the petitioners that only during 2013, respondent Nos.6 to 16 have approached the Assistant Commissioner by preferring an appeal requesting to enter their names in respect of Hissa No.7 without arraigning these petitioners as parties and the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal. When this - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6380 WP No. 102132 of 2021 order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner produced as per Annexure-H, the same was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner. The said appeal came to be dismissed as per Annexure-J. Therefore the petitioners are before this Court. 6. On perusal of the materials on record, admittedly M.E.No.12777 was certified on the basis of KJP during 1994. None of the parties were aggrieved by the same, and as such, they have not challenged the said mutation entry. During 2013, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 approached the Assistant Commissioner by preferring an appeal only on the ground that as per ME.No.12777, even though 7 Hissa’s were bifurcated, their names were not shown in respect of Hissa No.7. Considering the same, the Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned order directing to enter the names of Siddram Gangappa Badad and Shankara Dhondu Badad, in respect of R.S No.5A, Hissa No. 7, measuring 3.26 acres of Kabbur village. The same was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6380 WP No. 102132 of 2021 who rejected the appeal referred by the petitioners as per Annexure-J. Thereby he confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 7. Admittedly a survey was conducted and ME.No.12777 was effected as per the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 02.05.1994 effecting 7 Hissas in Sy.No.5 of Kaburu village. None of the parties were aggrieved by the same. During 2013, respondent No.6-Siddaram Gangappa Badad and respondent No.11- Shankar Dhondu Badad have approached the Assistant Commissioner to show their names in respect of Hissa No. 7. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order which came to be confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. I do not find any reason to quash the impugned orders, as the petitioners are not in a position to highlight as to how their rights are effected by the impugned orders. When the petitioners are not aggrieved by M.E.No.12777 and when the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6380 WP No. 102132 of 2021 Deputy Commissioner were also on the basis of said ME No.12777, I do not find any illegality or perversity in these impugned orders. 8. If the petitioners want to assert their right in respect of a particular piece of land, they are at liberty to approach the Civil Court to seek necessary reliefs. But I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner, as no specific grounds are made out to interfere with the same. Simply because the petitioners were not arraigned as parties before the Assistant Commissioner, the same cannot be a ground to quash the order, unless it is shown that the rights of the petitioners are effected in any manner. Hence, I do not find any merits in the petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab – upto para 3 MKM – para 4 to end CT:ANB/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16