- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6564 WP No. 106145 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 106145 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVANAND S/O. BASAPPA KOLIGUDDA AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MAHALINGAPUR, TQ. RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587314. 2. SHRISHAIL S/O. BASAPPA KOLIGUDDA AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MAHALINGAPUR, TQ. RABAKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT - 587314. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 01. 2. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, NORTH ZONE, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, CMC MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587314. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6564 WP No. 106145 of 2024 JAMAKHANDI, BAGALKOT DIST: BAGALKOT – 587314. 5. THE CITY SURVEY OFFCIER, MAHALINGAPUR, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587314. 6. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT -587313 NOW, THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, RABAKAVI-BANAHATTI, TQ: RABAKAVI-BANHATTI, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587314. 7. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT – 587301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1, R2, R5 TO R7; R4 – SERVED; SRI. B.V. KERUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: A) QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 03.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN PÀæ.¥Áæ¨sÀÆdA¤/vÁA( PÀæ.¥Áæ¨sÀÆdA¤/vÁA( PÀæ.¥Áæ¨sÀÆdA¤/vÁA( PÀæ.¥Áæ¨sÀÆdA¤/vÁA(1)/«ªÀ )/«ªÀ )/«ªÀ )/«ªÀ- 01/2023-24/349 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. B) CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN PÀæ.Dgï.E«í/¥ÉÆÃr/ PÀæ.Dgï.E«í/¥ÉÆÃr/ PÀæ.Dgï.E«í/¥ÉÆÃr/ PÀæ.Dgï.E«í/¥ÉÆÃr/ J¸ï.Dgï J¸ï.Dgï J¸ï.Dgï J¸ï.Dgï----1/2022-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-B BY PERMITTING THE PETITIONERS TO WITHDRAW THE REVISION PETITION DATED 03.09.2021 FILED BY THEM IN THE SAID PROCEEDINGS, THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 03.05.2023 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 IN PÀæ.¥Áæ¨sÀÆdA¤/vÁA( PÀæ.¥Áæ¨sÀÆdA¤/vÁA( PÀæ.¥Áæ¨sÀÆdA¤/vÁA( PÀæ.¥Áæ¨sÀÆdA¤/vÁA(1)/«ªÀ )/«ªÀ )/«ªÀ )/«ªÀ-01/2023- 24/349 VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6564 WP No. 106145 of 2024 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 petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 3.5.2023, issued by respondent No.2 - the Regional Joint Director of Land Records (RJDLR), produced as per Annexure-D and consequently, to quash the order dated 06.05.2022, produced as per Annexure -B, permitting the petitioners to withdraw the Revision Petition preferred before respondent No.2, produced as per Annexure-D. 2. Heard Sri.Girish A Yadawad, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 to 7. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of petitioners that 3 acres of land in RS.No.1/1 of Mahalingpur belongs to the petitioners. They got it converted for non-agricultural - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6564 WP No. 106145 of 2024 purposes. The ADLR prepared KJP sheet. 56 plots were formed in the said land. Separate CTS records were prepared. There was partition between Mahalingappa Ittappa Kokigudda and the petitioners, wherein the property in question was allotted to the share of the petitioners. 4. It is stated that the petitioners wanted to develop the property and approached the Town Planning Authority for approval of the map. At that time, the petitioners were informed by somebody that KJP sheet prepared was not proper. Petitioners approach ADLR once again to prepare the fresh KJP, which was rejected by ADLR on the ground that, since there was already a KJP, drawing of fresh KJP cannot be permitted. Under such circumstances, petitioners approached respondent No.2 by filing a revision seeking to cancel the earlier KJP, directing ADLR to prepare KJP afresh. The revision was allowed. Accordingly earlier KJP was set aside, and the ADLR was directed to prepare fresh KJP. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6564 WP No. 106145 of 2024 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that now the petitioners were informed by somebody that the earlier KJP itself was correct and therefore, there is no need of preparing the KJP afresh. Hence, the petitioners approached respondent No.2 once again seeking to review its order of canceling the earlier KJP and directing the ADLR to prepare KJP afresh. The said prayer was rejected by issuing the impugned endorsement, produced as per Annexure-D. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. The petitioners have approached the ADLR for fresh KJP by saying that the earlier KJP was not proper, the ADLR has refused to affect fresh KJP when already KJP was drawn. They themselves have approached respondent No.2 with a request to cancel the earlier KJP and seeking direction to the ADLR for preparation of fresh KJP. Such a request by the petitioners was considered by respondent No.2, and he passed an order cancelling the earlier KJP directing the ADLR to prepare fresh KJP. Now the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6564 WP No. 106145 of 2024 petitioners have turned around to contend that the earlier KJP itself was correct and therefore, there is no necessity of preparing KJP afresh. I do not find any basis for this inconsistent stand taken by the petitioners which is said to be only on the basis of the say of somebody in the office of the ADLR. Even otherwise, when the petitioners themselves got the order in their favour to cancel the earlier KJP with a direction to the ADLR to prepare KJP afresh, I do not find any reason to quash the endorsement produced as per Annexure–D. Moreover the scope of review is very limited and it will not permit respondent No.2 to recall the order passed on merits, and permitting the petitioners to withdraw the revision. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11