- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17252 WP No. 100795 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 100795 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. MUKUND S/O. RAMRAO KULKARNI, AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, REP.BY HIS GPA HOLDER, GIRISH S/O. LAXMANRAO NADGIR, AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD – 580 025. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VYAS DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD – 580 008. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD – 580 008. 4. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17252 WP No. 100795 of 2025 R.P.BUILDINGS, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001. 5. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITTION OFFICER, DHARWAD, KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD, DHARWAD – 580 004. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SHASHANK HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18/03/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-H AND TO CARRY OUT E-PROCESS WITH RESPECT TO PLOT NO. 63+67/6. II. ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO ENTER THE PETITIONER’S NAME IN RESPECT TO PLOT NO. 63+67/6 WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY HIM, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17252 WP No. 100795 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this court seeking the following prayer: “I. Issue a writ in nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 18/03/2024 vide Annexure-H and to carry out e-process with respect to plot no. 63+67/6. ii. Issue a writ in nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to enter the petitioner’s name in respect to plot no.63+67/6 which was purchased by him, in the interest of justice and equity. iii. Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant as per the facts and circumstances of this case in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. The petitioner has approached this Court not once, but on three earlier occasions. The Co-ordinate Bench, in W.P. No.103907/2018, by order dated 11.09.2020, passed the following order: 1. “The petitioner is before this Court seeking for certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 03.03.2018 bearing No.KraRTC/ TidduPadi/ Vahi/ 16/ 2017-18 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-C. 2. The petition contends that the petitioner has purchased plot bearing No.65 and 66 (newly numbered as 63+67/6) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17252 WP No. 100795 of 2025 from one Madhukar Naik through his General Power of Attorney holder Pandurang Laxmeshwar measuring approximately 240.50 sq.mts. through a registered sale deed dated 11.12.1987. 3. It is stated that in Survey No.3/1 of Gokul Village, six plots have been demarcated as per the plans approved by the Town Planning Authority and accordingly name of the original owner was deleted by substituting the same with the name of the purchasers. 4. The petitioner contended that plots earlier numbered as 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67 were subsequently renumbered as 63+67/1, 63+67/2, 63+67/3, 63+67/4, 63+67/5 and 63+67/6. Due to renumbering of plots, the petitioner has given representation dated 03.04.2014 to the respondent No.3, the Tahasildar and subsequently to respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner to delete the name of the original owner and mutate the name of petitioner in the revenue records. When the same was not done, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.108995/2016 for a mandamus directing the authorities to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner. This Court vide its order dated 21st August 2017 in the said writ petition, allowed the same and issued mandamus as prayed for. 5. The petitioner was therefore expecting the authorities to act on the said order of this Court and hence, wrote to the respondents on 22.09.2017 about the order of this Court and requested them to take necessary action. Respondent No.3, the Tahasildar in his report to respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner has stated about the plots having been renumbered, but has further - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17252 WP No. 100795 of 2025 stated that the said land having been acquired by the KIADB for the purpose of Airport. The name of the petitioner cannot be brought on record, since the acquisition is completed. It is further stated that since the plots do not bear the names of original owner, it was difficult for the authorities to mutate the name of the petitioner in the plots subsequently formed and there was further difficulty in terms of as to which plot, the name of the petitioner has to be mutated to. 6. Respondent No.2, the Deputy Commissioner, vide its communication dated 03.03.2018 addressed to respondent No.3, the Tahasildar has directed the Tahasildar to issue endorsement that the representation made by the petitioner cannot be considered on account of the acquisition by the KIADB for the Airport having been completed. It is aggrieved by such internal correspondence and apprehending that respondent No.3, the Tahasildar will not do the needful, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Shri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the plot No.63+67/6 is shown to be in the name of Airport Authority of India subsequent to acquisition having been completed. The same is neither in the name of original owner nor has the authority mutated the same in the name of the petitioner. He further submits that on account of internal communication dated 03.03.2018, respondent No.3, the Tahasildar has not taken any action and is unlikely to take any action. Therefore, the internal communication being contrary to applicable law inasmuch as no authority could refuse the mutation of the revenue entry in he name of the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17252 WP No. 100795 of 2025 purchaser, who has purchased the property under registered sale deed, is before this Court seeking for quashing of the said internal communication. 8. Per contra, Shri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned HCGP for the respondents would submit that what is challenged by the petitioner is only internal communication, such internal communication would not be a cause of action to seek for a certiorari. The internal communication is not an order by itself, the petitioner would have to wait for consideration of his representation by the Tahasildar. On this basis, he submits that the petition is premature and ought to be dismissed. 9. Heard Shri Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.S. Kalasurmath, learned HCGP for the respondents. Perused the papers 10.It is not in dispute that one Madhukar Naik owned five plots in Sy.No.3/1 of Gokul village and it is also not in dispute that the said Madhukar Naik through his GPA Holder Pandurang Bhimrao Laxmeshwar sold six plots to various parties. 11.It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has purchased the plots bearing Nos.65 & 66 in the said survey number. The petitioner has produced a P.T.Sheet indicating that new plot numbers 63+67/6 having been allotted to those lands purchased by him. It is for the authorities to have considered these documents and caused necessary mutation in the revenue records by including the name of the petitioner as regards the property purchased by him. Instead of so doing, the petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post seeking for such mutation and in the meanwhile is neither able to use the land nor claim - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17252 WP No. 100795 of 2025 compensation in the event of the acquisition proceedings being completed for the establishment of the airport. In view of the same considering that the records are clear of plot Nos.65 & 66 now having been numbered as 63+67/6. 12.The endorsement dated 03.03.2018 bearing No.Kra.RTC/Tiddupadi/ Vahi-16/2017-18 issued by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-C is quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the documents and make necessary entry of the name of the petitioner as regards plot bearing No.63+67/6 in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly allowed. 13. In view of the above, the pending I.A.No.1/2020 is allowed and I.A.No.2/2020 does not survive for consideration.“ 3. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation in terms of the said order, which again came to be rejected. This rejection is now called in question. Even prior to the said order, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.No.10899/2016, and by order dated 21.08.2017, the Court observed as follows: “Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for respondents. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner alleging inaction on the part of the respondents 2 and 3 in not considering his representations for entering his name - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17252 WP No. 100795 of 2025 in the revenue records and therefore seeking direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to consideration his representations dated 03.04.2014 and 06.09.2016. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he purchased a plot bearing No. 65 and 66 (part) (newly numbered as 63+67/6) through a registered sale deed dated 11.12.1987 from one Madhukar Ramrao Naik through his General Power of Attorney Pandurang Bhimrao Laxmeshwar, totally measuring 240.50 sq. mts. Out of the survey no. 3/1 of Gokul Village in Hubballi Taluk of Dharwad District vide Annexure-A. It is further contended that, one Mr. Ramesh son of Suryanarayan Joshi and others have also purchased the plots adjacent to the petitioner’s plot from the aforesaid Madhukar Ramrao Naik through his General Power of Attorney Pandurang Bhimrao Laxmeshwar, vide details as depicted in the writ petition (copies are produced vide Annexures B, B1, B2, B3 and B4). 4. Further, the aforesaid Ramesh Suryanarayan Joshi and others after having purchased the said plots got effected their names in the revenue records. Copies of the RTCs pertaining to the said plots are produced and marked as Annexures-C, C1, C2, C3 and C4. Further, the said plots were earlier numbered as Plot Nos. 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67 and thereafter the said plots were re- numbered as plot No. 63+67/1, 63+67/2, 63+67/3, 63+67/4, 63+67/5 and 63+67/6, copy of the P.T. sheet is produced and marked as Annexure-D. In view of the above, though the petitioner has filed representations vide Annexures F and G dated 03.04.2014 and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17252 WP No. 100795 of 2025 06.09.2016, but till today the respondents 2 and 3 have not passed any order. 5. Learned AGA submits that, if the petitioner has complied all other statutory compliances in accordance with law, his representations will be considered by the respondents 2 and 3, if not already complied, as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 6. In view of the aforesaid reasons, respondents 2 and 3 are hereby directed to consider the representations of the petitioners dated 03.04.2014 and 06.09.2016 vide Annexures F and G, if not already complied, as expeditiously as possible but within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid reasons the writ petition stands disposed of. “ 4. For the third time, the petitioner again approached this Court in W.P.No.106221/2023. The Co-ordinate Bench disposed of the petition by the following order, which reads as follows: “The petitioner in this petition is seeking for a direction to the respondents No.2 and 3 to consider the representation submitted by him for mutating his name in the revenue records in respect of the plot bearing No.63+67/6. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17252 WP No. 100795 of 2025 2. The learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents has filed a memo stating that, the subject plot is not agricultural land, and the petitioner has to approach the competent Authority by filing e-process. 3. In view of the memo filed by the learned High Court Government Pleader stating that the subject property is not agricultural land, the relief sought for in this petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent Authority by filing e-process.” 5. The result of all these proceedings is that the present petition has been filed. 6. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that these respondents have now been impleaded as parties. In all the earlier proceedings, only the State was made a party. 7. In that light, the learned counsel submits that, if reasonable time is granted, appropriate orders will be passed in accordance with law, bearing in mind the observations made by the Co-ordinate Benches as quoted hereinabove. 8. In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the subject petition, directing Respondents Nos.4 and 5 to consider the case of the petitioner and pass necessary orders. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17252 WP No. 100795 of 2025 9. It is needless to observe that respondents Nos.4 and 5 shall not compel the petitioner to approach this Court again on the same cause of action for non-consideration of the representation in accordance with law. Compliance shall be made within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AC/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21