- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3806-DB WA No. 100052 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 100052 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. ALLASAB S/O. SAIDUSAB MUDDAPUR, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JEERGAL, MUDHOL TALUK, BAGALKOT-587313. 2. PEERSAB S/O. ALLASAB MUDDAPUR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JEERGAL, MUDHOL TALUK, BAGALKOTE-587313. 3. BIBIJAN W/O. ALLASAB MUDDAPUR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JEERGAL, MUDHOL TALUK, BAGALKOTE-587313. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MANJUNATH A. KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT-587310. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3806-DB WA No. 100052 of 2025 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER JAMAKHANDI-587301. 3. TAHALSIDAR MUDHOL-587313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE ORDER DATED. 15-11-2024, PASSED IN REVIEW PETITION NO. 100085 OF 2024, ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION. CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO. 101660 OF 2016 FILED BY THE APPELLANTS AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3806-DB WA No. 100052 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) This writ appeal is as against the writ Court’s order dated 07.02.2024 in WP No.101660/2016, and the writ Court's order reads as under: "Learned counsel for respondent No.4 filed a memo enclosing a copy of judgment passed by this Court in RFA No.100226/2014 C/W RFA CROB. No.100007/2022, by which, the decree passed by the Trial Court declaring the plaintiff/ respondent No.4 as the owner of the suit schedule property is confirmed. Therefore, the dispute between the parties having attained finality before the jurisdictional Civil Court, the relief sought for in this petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of." The appeal is belated and as such an application [IA No.3/2025] is filed for condonation of delay. Sri. Manjunath A. Karigannavar, the learned counsel for the appellants, and Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3806-DB WA No. 100052 of 2025 learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for respondents, are heard. Sri. Manjunath A. Karigannavar submits that this Court must interfere with the impugned order because it is despite the fact that the fourth respondent in the writ petition had died way back on 12.06.2022 and application is not filed to bring the legal representatives on record. The legal representatives are not arrayed as parties in the present proceedings, and no application is filed in this regard. The appellants’ grievance against the writ Court’s order and on the request for condonation of delay is examined in the light of the terms upon which the writ petition stood disposed of. The writ Court has not adjudicated on the merits of the revenue entries, but as observed what would be consequential law viz., the revenue entries of the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3806-DB WA No. 100052 of 2025 property must follow the declaration by the competent Court. If the appellants are aggrieved by any outcome in the original proceedings, they must pursue their right and there is no cause for interference on the ground urged. The writ appeal stands rejected accordingly disposing of the applications, including the application for condonation of delay. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE PJ/CT:VG LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 18