- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7737 WP No. 104763 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 104763 OF 2021 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: HANUMAPPA NAGAPPA CHINCHALI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GADDANAKERI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: BAGALKOT-587101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANGADHAR S. HOSAKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, BAGALKOT-587101. 3. YALLAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA ANKALAGI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KERAKALAMATTI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT-587101. 4. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. VENKAPPA ANKALAGI, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KERAKALAMATTI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT- 587101. 5. MARUTI S/O. VENKAPPA ANKALAGI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KERAKALAMATTI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT- 587101. 6. SMT. HANUMAVVA W/O. BASAPPA HANAPUR, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.06.19 16:01:09 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7737 WP No. 104763 of 2021 R/O. KERAKALAMATTI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT- 587101. 7. YANKAVVA W/O. HANUMANT SHELLIKERI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KERAKALAMATTI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT- 587101. 8. RAMANNA S/O. VENKAPPA ANKALAGI, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KERAKALAMATTI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT- 587101. 9. BHIMAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA ANKALAGI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KERAKALAMATTI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT- 587101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. GIRISH BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R6-R9; SRI. LINGARAJ MARADI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO.RTS/CR-37/2020-21 DATED 05.02.2021 VIDE ANNEXURE- C. b) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CERTIFYING M.R.NO.T-113 DATED 2020-2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-H. c) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO ENTER THE NAME OF PETITIONER TO R.S.NO.147/5A/BP2 MEASURING 18 ACRES 02 GUNTAS, SITUATED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF SEEMIKERI VILLAGE OF BAGALKOT TALUKA AND DISTRICT AS PER THE COMPROMISE DECREE IN O.S.NO.299/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-E2 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7737 WP No. 104763 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. Heard Sri.Gangadhar S. Hosakeri, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.M.M.Khannur, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri.Girish Bhat, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3, 6 and 9 and Sri.Lingaraj Maradi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by respondent No.2- Tahashildar in RTS/CR-37/2020-21 dated 05.02.2021 at Annexure-G. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the agricultural land bearing R.S.No.147/5A/BP2 measuring 18 acres 02 guntas, situated within the limits of Seemikeri village of Bagalkot Taluka and District, one Venkappa S/o Bhimappa Ankalagi filed form No.7 before the Land Tribunal, Bagalkot and after enquiry, he was considered as the occupant of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7737 WP No. 104763 of 2021 said land Form No.10 was issued and accordingly, the name of by the Shri.Venkappa S/o Bhimappa Ankalagi was mutated for properties measuring 18 acres 2 guntas and so also the records of rights the name was entered. After the death of Venkappa S/o Bhimappa Ankalagi, his son by name Ramanna S/o Venkappa Ankalagi, present respondent No.8 filed suit for partition and separate possession in O.S.No.299/2019 before the Prl. Civil Judge JMFC, Bagalkot against his brothers and sisters. In the said suit, a compromise was entered into by the parties and compromise decree came to be passed with regard to land mentioned herein above measuring 18 acres, 2 guntas. As per the compromise decree, the land mentioned above was given to the petitioner herein. The compromise petition dated 24.08.2020 and accepted by the Hon’ble Court on 26.08.2020. Compromise decree came to be passed on 03.09.2020. 4. A Revenue Inspector issued an intimation letter to respondent Nos.3 to 9 to produce documents with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7737 WP No. 104763 of 2021 regard to issuance of Form No.10 and how the property came to the family ownership. Petitioner appeared before respondent No.2 whereas respondent Nos.3 to 9 remained absent. 5. Respondent No.2 passed an order and rejected the claim of the petitioner and ordered the land be forfeited. It is this order that is questioned by the petitioner before this Court. On the ground that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2- Tahashildar illegal, arbitrary unsustainable without any authority of law, as he cannot sit over the judgement of the Civil Court which passed the compromise. On these grounds, he seeks to quash the impugned order and direct the respondent to enter the name in accordance to the compromise decree. Hence, this present petition. 6. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate representing State contends that the present petition is not maintainable as there is an alternative efficacious remedy is available and as per Section 136(2) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7737 WP No. 104763 of 2021 of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964, petitioner have remedies available before the authorities which have not been exhausted. The present petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not maintainable. On these grounds, he seeks dismissal of the petition. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for respondent No.1-State and perused the impugned order and records placed before the Court. 8. It is apparently seen that the petitioner is relying upon a compromise decree before Tahasildar for change of mutation entries and the Tahasildar rejected the same. Upon rejection of the entry of names by the Tahasildar under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, would come into play for the petitioner to explore the appeal remedy which has not been exhausted, the petitioner would have to be relegated to appellate remedy to challenge the order of the Tahsildar rather than approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On this short point, I am inclined to - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7737 WP No. 104763 of 2021 accept the submission of learned AGA that the present petition would not be maintainable. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of. ii. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate appellate authority against the orders passed by respondent No.2-Tahasildar. iii. If such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner, same shall be disposed of expeditiously. iv. The time spent herein shall be condoned by the appellate authority. v. Interim order granted by this Court on 03.12.2021 with regard to status-quo would enure to the benefit of the petitioner till the same is vacated by appellate authority. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:7737 WP No. 104763 of 2021 vi. It is made clear that no opinion is expressed by this Court on the merits of the matter. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE AC CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40