Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 60376 (KAR)

FAKKIRAPPA JAJAPPA KAMANNAVAR v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/107231/2025 · 2025-10-16

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14011 WP No. 107231 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 107231 OF 2025 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: FAKKIRAPPA JAJAPPA KAMANNAVAR, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANDJINAGAR, YARAGATTI, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 120. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590 001. 3. THE PRESIDENT, PATTANA PANCHAYAT, YARAGATTI, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 129. 4. THE SECRETARY, PATTANA PANCHAYAT, YARAGATTI, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 129. 5. THE CHIEF OFFICER, PATTANA PANCHAYAT, YARAGATTI, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.18 07:57:16 +0100 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14011 WP No. 107231 of 2025 TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 129. 6. BASAVARAJ VENKAPPA KADAKOL, AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB, R/O. WARD NO.1, NAYANAGAR, YARAGATTI, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 129. 7. MARUTI VENKAPPA KADAKOL, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE JOB, R/O. WARD NO.1, NAYANAGAR, YARAGATTI, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 129. 8. SHYAMALA D/O. VENKAPPA KADAKOL, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. WARD NO.1, NAYANAGAR, YARAGATTI, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 129. 9. MANGALA W/O MADADEV MORE, AGE. 54 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. WARD NO.1, NAYANAGAR, YARAGATTI, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 129. 10. UMADEVI W/O. SHIVAJI ANCHI, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. WARD NO.1, NAYANAGAR, YARAGATTI, TQ. YARAGATTI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 129. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03.04.2025 BEARING NO. BJM / DUDC /APPEAL /CR / 01/ 2024-25-176 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE- B. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14011 WP No. 107231 of 2025 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 by the petitioner, assailing the order dated 03.04.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, wherein the revenue entry standing in the name of petitioner, in respect of petitioner’s property, has been set aside. In terms of the said order, the name of the original owner has been restored. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that original owner had relinquished the property in favour of the petitioner through an unregistered relinquishment deed before the Deputy Commissioner. However, the said unregistered relinquishment deed has not been produced. 3. Learned counsel of the petitioner further submits that the revenue entry and the resolution passed by the Corporation are questioned by the descendants of the original owner after a lapse of 15 years and only after his demise. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14011 WP No. 107231 of 2025 4. Since, it is submitted that the document is not registered and the petitioner is a stranger to the family of the owner, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 5. It is also stated that the suit is pending. Under these circumstances, this Court does not intend to interfere with the impugned order. 6. The observations made in this order shall not be construed as having expressed any opinion against either of the parties, except to the extent that the unregistered document does not create any right in favour of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 47