- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16204 WP No. 108810 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 108810 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. RAMESH S/O DUNDAPPA IRAGAR, AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGANUR P.K., TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 240. 2. SANJAY S/O DUNDAPPA IRAGAR, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGANUR P.K., TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 240. 3. SADASHIV S/O MALLAPPA BIRADAR, AGE. 24 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGANUR P.K., TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 240. 4. SMT. SUMITRA W/O MALLAPPA BIRADAR, AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BADAGI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 248. 5. SMT. REKHA W/O SURESH MADAR, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGANUR P.K., TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 240. 6. SMT. SHOBHA W/O SADASHIV MADAR, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NAGANUR P.K., TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 240. & PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAHUL S. KUNTOJI, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.05 10:52:32 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16204 WP No. 108810 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590 001. 3. THE TAHASHILDAR, MINI VIDHAN SOUDHA, ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 304. 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, TELSANG, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 265. 5. MAHADEV BIJJARAGI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BADAGI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 248. 6. SIDDAPPA NYAMAGOUDA, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BADAGI, TQ. ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 248. & RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 12.09.2025 VIDE BEARING NO. LND/RASTE/VIDA-87/2025-26 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO FACILITATE THE USAGE OF PATH WAY IN R.S. NO.73/1 AND 66/8 OF BADAGI VILLAGE IN ATHANI TALUKA OF BELAGAVI DISTRICT BY PETITIONERS BY REMOVING THE OBSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH NOTIFICATION DATED 20.10.2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16204 WP No. 108810 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the endorsement marked at Annexure-G dated 12.09.2025, issued by respondent No.3- Tahsildar, on the premise that the said endorsement at Annexure-G is contrary to the circular dated 20.10.2023 issued by the Government. 2. The petitioners claim that they have a right of way over R.S.Nos.66/8 and 73/1 of Badagi village, Athani taluk, Belagavi district, to reach their land bearing Sy.No.72 in the same village. The petition is filed assailing the Annexure-G dated 12.09.2025, the endorsement issued by respondent No.3-Tahsildar, who has opined that no such road, as claimed by the petitioners, is in existence, and has further held that in case any road exists or if the petitioners have any claim of easement, then petitioners may approach the Competent Civil Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16204 WP No. 108810 of 2025 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the endorsement at Annexure-G is contrary to the Government circular marked at Annexure-F. 4. In the Government circular dated 20.10.2023, it is stated that under Rule 59 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 19661, the admitted easements or rights agreed upon between the parties shall be noted in the Record of Rights Register in <Other Rights= column. The said circular also refers to the provisions of the Indian Easements Act, 18822, and the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19733, namely Section 147 of the Cr.P.C., stating that in case of any obstruction in the use of such right, the Tahsildar/Magistrate has the jurisdiction to pass appropriate orders. The circular directs all Tahsildars to take necessary action in cases involving such obstruction. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would urge that the Tahsildar was under obligation to recognize the 1 For short, 8K.L.R. Rules9 2 For short, 8Act of 18829 3 For short, 8Cr.P.C.9 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16204 WP No. 108810 of 2025 petitioners9 rights, and to remove obstruction caused by the contesting private respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of his contention would also refer to the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ningappa Lakkappa Ainapur and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others4, , to contend that the writ petition is maintainable. 7. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 8. Rule No.59 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, which is referred to in the notification dated 20.10.2023, reads as under: <59. Rights of way and other easements:- Any easements or rights agreed upon between the parties shall be noted in the Record of Rights Register under the column <Other Rights= 9. The said provision does not recognize the power of the Tahsildar to decide the dispute relating to easements or any 4 In W.P.No.101285/2025. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16204 WP No. 108810 of 2025 other rights. It only speaks about entry to be made in record of right relating to the rights or easements agreed between the parties. 10. The petitioners do not claim that the property over which they are claiming right of way is admitted between the petitioners and the private respondents. Thus, the petitioners cannot take shelter under Rule 59 of the K.L.R. Rules, to contend that the Tahsildar has the right to adjudicate the dispute relating to easements. 11. Section 147 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which is referred to in the aforementioned notification reads as under: <147. Dispute concerning right of use of land or water.4(1) Whenever an Executive Magistrate is satisfied from the report of a police officer or upon other information, that a dispute likely to cause a breach of the peace exists regarding any alleged right of user of any land or water within his local jurisdiction, whether such right be claimed as an easement or otherwise, he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied and requiring the parties - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16204 WP No. 108810 of 2025 concerned in such dispute to attend his Court in person or by pleader on a specified date and time and to put in written statements of their respective claims. Explanation.4The expression <land or water= has the meaning given to it in sub-section (2) of section 145. (2) The Magistrate shall then peruse the statements so put in, hear the parties, receive all such evidence as may be produced by them respectively, consider the effect of such evidence, take such further evidence, if any, as he thinks necessary and, if possible, decide whether such right exists; and the provisions of section 145 shall, so far as may be, apply in the case of such inquiry. (3) If it appears to such Magistrate that such rights exist, he may make an order prohibiting any interference with the exercise of such right, including, in a proper case, an order for the removal of any obstruction in the exercise of any such right: Provided that no such order shall be made where the right is exercisable at all times of the year, unless such right has been exercised within - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16204 WP No. 108810 of 2025 three months next before the receipt under sub- section (1) of the report of a police officer or other information leading to the institution of the inquiry, or where the right is exercisable only at particular seasons or on particular occasions, unless the right has been exercised during the last of such seasons or on the last of such occasions before such receipt. (4) When in any proceedings commenced under sub-section (1) of section 145 the Magistrate finds that the dispute is as regards an alleged right of user of land or water, he may, after recording his reasons, continue with the proceedings as if they had been commenced under sub-section (1); and when in any proceedings commenced under sub-section (1) the magistrate finds that the dispute should be dealt with under section 145, he may, after recording his reasons, continue with the proceedings as if they had been commenced under sub-section (1) of section 145.= 12. Section 147 of Cr.P.C. also makes reference to the provisions of Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., insofar as the procedure is concerned. Section 145 of the Cr.P.C., also refers to Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, from the said provisions, it is evident - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16204 WP No. 108810 of 2025 that the Magistrate has a jurisdiction conferred under Sections 145, 147 and 107 of the Cr.P.C, to deal with the situations contemplated therein. 13. It is to be noticed that the present petitioners have not lodged any complaint under Section 147 of the Cr.P.C. If such a complaint is to be filed, the Magistrate has to proceed in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Samhite. 14. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places reliance on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ningappa Lakkappa Ainapur (supra), the Court is of the view that in the said judgment, the provisions of Rule 59 of the K.L.R. Rules, and Section 147 of the Cr.P.C., referred to above, were not brought to the notice of the Court. In addition to that, the Court has not entertained the writ petition on the premise that the Tahsildar has jurisdiction to decide the rights relating to easement, and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16204 WP No. 108810 of 2025 15. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find any reason to quash Annexure-G. 16. However, it is made clear that in case a complaint is filed under the provisions of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20235, the Tahsildar shall act in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein. 17. It is also made clear that the petitioners may also approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. If such dispute is raised, the Executive Magistrate or the Civil Court shall proceed further in accordance with law, without being influenced by the order of dismissal of this petition. 18. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 33 5 Fort short, 8BNSS, 20239