- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15570 WP No. 101806 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 101806 OF 2021 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: CHANNAPPA S/O. HONNAPPA HUKKERI, AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAHALINGPUR, TALUK. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 312. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JAMAKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 301. 3. TAHASILDAR, MUDHOL TALUK, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 313. 4. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O. RACHAPPA KULLOLLI, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. H.H., R/O. MAHALINGPUR, TQ. MUDHOL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 312. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) 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 TO QUASH ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN KLR/79A/CR-03/2017-18 DATED 12/03/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AS NULL AND VOID. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15570 WP No. 101806 of 2021 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: 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 marked as Annexure-J, dated 12.03.2020, passed by respondent No.2 under Sections 63, 74, 79A and 79B of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 19611. 2. The petitioner has also challenged the finding of the Assistant Commissioner in the same order, wherein it has been held that there is no contravention of Section 63 of Act of 1961, insofar as landholding of respondent No.4 is concerned. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent, though served with notice, is not represented. 4. It is noticed that Sections 79A and 79B of Act of 1961 have been omitted with effect from 2020. This Court has interpreted that the said omission as having retrospective effect, as such the petitioner cannot raise a contention that the 1 For short, ‘Act of 1961’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15570 WP No. 101806 of 2021 transaction in favour of respondent No.4 is in violation of Sections 79A and 79B of Act of 1961. 5. The next question is whether the landholding of respondent No.4 is in violation of Section 63 of Act of 1961. Under Section 118 of Act of 1961, the order is appealable. Hence, the petition is not entertained. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru. 8. It is made clear that the appeal shall be only confined to the question as to whether the holding in the name of respondent No.4 is in violation of Section 63 of Act of 1961. 9. The enquiry shall not be held in respect of Sections 79A and 79B of Act of 1961. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the case of the parties. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP/CT:BCK/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 50