- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4617 WP No. 62437 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. 62437 OF 2010 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. JAYALAKSMI W/O. LATE T.DIGAMBHAR RAO, AGE: 75 YEARS, 2. GURUDATTA S/O. LATE T. SHANKAR RAO, AGE: 19 YEARS, 3. KUMARI SURPRIAYA D/O. LATE T. SHANKAR RAO, AGE:18 YEARS, 4. KUMARI PRIYANKA D/O. LATE T. SHANKAR RAO, AGE: 18 YEARS, 5. BALAJI RAO S/O LATE T. DIGAMBHAR RAO, AGE: 49 YEARS, 6. MOHAN RAO S/O LATE T. DIGAMBHAR RAO, AGE: 44 YEARS, 7. SMT. GANGABAI D/O LATE T. DIGAMBHAR RAO, AGE: 41 YEARS, 8. SHANTARAM RAO S/O LATE T. DIGAMBHAR RAO, AGE: YEARS, (DIED) (NO MARRIAGE) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4617 WP No. 62437 of 2010 9. KRISHNAPRASAD S/O LATE T. DIGAMBHAR RAO, AGE: YEARS, (DIED NO MARRIAGE) 10. ANANDARAO S/O. LATE T. DIGAMBHAR RAO, AGE: 38 YEARS, 11. SURESH S/O LATE T. DIGAMBHAR RAO, AGE: 36 YEARS, 12. SMT. RAJESHWARI D/O. LATE T. DIGAMBHAR RAO, AGE: 33 YEARS, ALL ARE R/O. FORT HOSPET PETITIONERS NO.1 TO 4, 6 TO 12 ARE REP BY PET. NO.5 AS GPA HOLDER. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. B. S. SANGATI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER GULBARGA DIVISION, GULBARGA. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HOSPET SUB DIVISION, HOSPET. 4. THE TAHASILDAR HOSPET TALUK, HOSPET. 5. H. MADAN MOHAN S/O. SUBBARAO AGE: YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4617 WP No. 62437 of 2010 R/O. NO.51, ANURADHA, GURUDEV ROAD, NEAR URDU HIGH SCHOOL, SHIMOGGA. 6. SMT. SANNAKKI LAKSHMAVVA W/O. SANNAKKI CHITTAVADIGEPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. HUKKADAKERI, HOSPET. 7. SMT. KENCHGAR RANGAMMA W/O. KENCAGAR KUMARAPPA AGE: MAJOR, R/O. OPP. NINGANATHAN BHAVI KENCHAGAR PETH, HOSPET. 8. C.N.GOVINDAPPA S/O. NARAYANAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/O. HOSPET. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. SANGRAM S. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. J.M.ANILKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R7; SRI. SATHISH M.S. ADVOCATE FOR R8) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: a. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO RESPONDENT NO.2 TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OFF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS. b. IF THIS HON'BLE COURT DECIDES THAT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE SAME, IS SUCH EVENT IT MAY BE PLEASED TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. i) ORDER PASSED IN APPEAL NO.3/2008-09 DATED 19/01/2010 BY THE LEARNED ASST. COMMISSIONER, HOSPET VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ii) ORDER PASSED IN CASE NO.1285/1984-85,3731/84-85 DATED 24.03.2008 BY THE LEARNED TAHSILDAR HOSPET VIDE ANNEXURE- E. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4617 WP No. 62437 of 2010 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING –B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 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 Mandamus against respondent No.2 to hear and dispose of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioners. If in case, the Court holds that respondent No.2 has no authority to decide the Revision Petition, then to issue writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 19.01.2010, passed in Appeal No.3/2008-09, by the Assistant Commissioner, Hospete, produced as per Annexure-F, and also to quash the order dated 24-03-2008, passed by Tahsildar, Hospete, produced as per Annexure-E. 2. Heard Sri.B.S.Sangati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4, Sri.Sangram S Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.5, Sri.J.M.Anilkumar, learned counsel for respondent - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4617 WP No. 62437 of 2010 Nos.6 and 7. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the father of the petitioners that, he is entitled for confirmation of right as Inamdar in respect of 9.35 acres of land at Hospete Village in Survey No.276A. Respondent No.5 has filed a similar application claiming right as Inamdar over the same property. The Land Tribunal, Hospete, passed an order dated 09.03.1988, conferring occupancy right in favor of respondent No.5 and rejecting the claim of the father of the petitioners. The said order is produced as per Annexure-A. The petitioners have challenged the said order before the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal, Ballari, which quashed the order passed by the Land Tribunal, Hospete, vide its order dated 31.03.1989. It is stated that, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.3497/1989, challenging the order passed by the Land Reforms Appellate Tribunal. The said writ petition came to be allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal, Hospete. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4617 WP No. 62437 of 2010 4. Upon remanding the matter, the Land Tribunal, Hospete, conducted fresh enquiry, and again granted occupancy right in favour of respondent No.5, as per the order dated 15.07.2002. The said order was again challenged by the petitioners by filing Writ Petition No.33382/2002, which came to be allowed by this Court, and the matter was once again remanded to the Tahsildar for fresh consideration. The Tahsildar, Hospete, conducted an enquiry and passed the order dated 24.03.2008, again granting occupancy right in favour of respondent No.5. Even though an appeal was preferred before the Assistant Commissioner, Hospete, the same came to be rejected as per the order dated 19.01.2010. It is stated that, the petitioner had preferred a Revision before the Regional Commissioner, Gulbarga, who returned the petition by issuing an endorsement as per Annexure-G, stating that he lacks jurisdiction. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. The first prayer of the petitioners is to issue a - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4617 WP No. 62437 of 2010 writ of Mandamus directing respondent No.2 to hear and dispose of the Revision Petition filed by the petitioners. But even according to the petitioners, respondent No.2 has already issued endorsement as per Annexure-G returning the Revision Petition. Strangely, the endorsement at Annexure-G is never challenged by the petitioners. Under such circumstances, no such direction could be issued to respondent No.2. 6. The second prayer made by the petitioners is, in the alternate, to issue writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 19.01.2010 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, produced as per Annexure-F and the order dated 24.03.2008 passed by the Tahsildar, Hospete, produced as per Annexure-E. 7. I have gone through the impugned orders, that is, Annexure-E passed by the Tahsildar and Annexure-F passed by the Assistant Commissioner. A detailed order is passed by the Tahsildar referring to the documents that are produced before him, which clinches the issue against - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4617 WP No. 62437 of 2010 confirmation of occupancy right in favor of respondent No.5. Therefore, an opinion was formed that, immediately preceding The Karnataka Inam Abolition Act, 1977, respondent No.5 was cultivating the land as Inamdar as on 01.03.1974, and accordingly, the order was passed. It is also held that, no documents worth mentioning are produced on behalf of the petitioners herein to declare him as Inamdar, being in cultivation of the land as on 01.03.1974. The said finding was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, as he also formed a similar opinion regarding cultivation of the land as Inamdar, as on the appointed day. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to justify his claim for the purpose of opposing either the order passed by the Tashildar or by the Assistant Commissioner, which are impugned herein. When there are no materials to find fault with the order that are impugned herein, that is Annexures - E and F, I do not find any substance in the contention taken by the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4617 WP No. 62437 of 2010 petitioners. I do not find any justification to interfere with the said order. Under such circumstances, the petition shall fail. 9. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER Writ Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB,gab CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4