- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4936 WP No. 65364 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 65364 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: T. PARASURAM S/O. LATE HANUMANTHA RAO, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: BHAGYAJYOTHI COLONY, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. RESHMA MADIWALAR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) AND: 1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BELLARY. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY. 3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY. 4. SREE. S. THIMMAPP, S/O. THIMMAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: DEVAGIRI VILLAGE, TQ: SANDUR, DIST: BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3; R4 – H/S) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4936 WP No. 65364 of 2011 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT BY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-H DATED 24/06/2011 PASSED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT. 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 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order impugned dated 24.06.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner- respondent No.1, produced as per Annexure-H. 2. Heard Smt.Reshma Madiwalar, learned counsel for Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the lands bearing Sy.Nos.39, 42 and 47M/P8 totally measuring 3.50 acres situate at Devagiri village of Sandur taluk, Bellary District. Since the lands were Inam lands of Sree Kumarswamy - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4936 WP No. 65364 of 2011 Temple of Sandur standing in the name of his father Sri.T.Hanumantha Rao S/o. Laxman Rao, as he was cultivating the lands much prior to 01.03.1973. It is the grievance of the petitioner that ignoring all these facts and documents, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the order as per Annexure- H and therefore, the petition came to be filed to quash the said order. 4. The materials on record disclose that, the father of the petitioner, Hanumantha Rao has filed Form No.1 to declare him as a tenant and the said application was considered by the Land Tribunal and it came to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not aware as to whether the order passed by the Land Tribunal rejecting Form No.1 was challenged before the appropriate forum or not? It is pertinent to note that the Tahsildar, Sandur, passed the order dated 31.10.2009 as per Annexure-D, directing to mention the name of Hanumath Rao in column No.9 of the Record of Rights as the lands in question were leased in his favour as per the proceedings dated 16.11.1973. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4936 WP No. 65364 of 2011 5. The Assistant Commissioner, while passing Annexure- H referred to the proceedings of the Tahsildar, Sandur dated 16.11.1973 whereby the application made by Hanumatharao for granting lease for a period of five years has been rejected by the Land Tribunal, and accordingly, proceeded to pass the order impugned directing to remove the name of Hanumantharao from the Record of Rights. When no materials are placed before the Court to show that the order of the Land Tribunal rejecting Form No.1 filed by Hanumantharao was challenged by said Hanumantharao or by the petitioner, I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order Annexure-H. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7