- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5875 WP No. 103949 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 103949 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: TULASAVVA W/O. BAVAKANNA PAVALE, AGED 80 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NEERALAGA, NOW AT KESORALLI VILLAGE, TQ. HALIYAL DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581329. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VISHWANATH HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE TAHASILDAR, HALIYAL DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581329 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KARWAR SUB DIVISION, KARWAR DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: A) TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 24-07-2023 BEARING NO.RTS/VIVA-82/2021-22 ISSUED BY TAHASILDAR HALIYAL/ RESPONDENT NO.2 MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A. B) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO DELETE THE ENTRY (“¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ ¨ÁèPï £ÀA§gï ¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ ¨ÁèPï £ÀA§gï ¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ ¨ÁèPï £ÀA§gï ¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ ¨ÁèPï £ÀA§gï 51 gÀ°è PÉëÃvÀæ gÀ°è PÉëÃvÀæ gÀ°è PÉëÃvÀæ gÀ°è PÉëÃvÀæ 3-0-0”) APPEARING IN RECORD OF RIGHT PERTAINS TO SY. NO. 55/1 KESOROLLI VILLAGE IN HALIYAL TALUK AND TO RECTIFY THE ENTRY IN FAVOUR OF PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-M. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5875 WP No. 103949 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 petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 24.07.2023 issued by respondent No.2 - the Tahsildar, Haliyal, produced as per Annexure-A; and to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to delete the entry in the revenue records showing, “¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ ¨ÁèPï £ÀA§gï ¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ ¨ÁèPï £ÀA§gï ¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ ¨ÁèPï £ÀA§gï ¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ ¨ÁèPï £ÀA§gï 51 gÀ°è PÉëÃvÀæ gÀ°è PÉëÃvÀæ gÀ°è PÉëÃvÀæ gÀ°è PÉëÃvÀæ 3-0-0”, in Survey No.55/1 of Kesorolli Village in Haliyal Taluk. 2. Heard Sri.Vishwanath Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that, originally the land measuring 11 acres 11 guntas in Survey No.55/1 of Kesorolli Village in Haliyal taluk, Uttara - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5875 WP No. 103949 of 2024 Kannada District, was granted in favor of the father of the petitioner. Form No.10 was also issued and mutation was effected in the name of the father of the petitioner. However, in the record of rights, 30 guntas of land was shown as Government Lake (¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ ¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ ¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ ¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ)))). The petitioner gave an application to the Tahsildar to rectify the said entry found in the record of rights. The Tahsildar passed the order as per Annexure-F, categorically holding that the entry as “¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ ¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ ¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ ¸ÀgÀPÁj PÉgÉ” has to be deleted. However, the same was taken into consideration by the Assistant Commissioner and directed the Tahsildar to reconsider the order, upon which the Tahsildar has issued the endorsement as per Annexure-A, simply saying that M.R.No.623 dated 11.11.1967 was already certified and therefore, the corrections as sought for by the petitioner cannot be effected. 4. Being aggrieved by the said endorsement, even though an appeal was preferred before the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-L, the Assistant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5875 WP No. 103949 of 2024 Commissioner has not considered the said appeal, but only made an endorsement that already an endorsement is given. Therefore, the petitioner is before this court. 5. Learned AGA for the respondents opposing the petition submitted that, when the petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexures ‘A’ and ‘N’, his remedy is to approach the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘KLR Act’, for short). Without exhausting the said remedy, the petitioner has directly approached this Court without any reason. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, since the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner have not passed any order on merits assigning reasons, he has approached this Court. I do not find any justification to bypass the Deputy Commissioner and Section 136 of the KLR Act to approach this Court directly. Section 136(3) - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5875 WP No. 103949 of 2024 of the KLR ACt does not say that the Deputy Commissioner can consider the appeal by the petitioner only if there is a reasoned order. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this petition. 7. Accordingly, the petition dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17