- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5912 WP No. 105789 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.105789 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: HASANSAB MALIKSAB KAMBARGANNAVI DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS. 1. MAKTHUMBI W/O. HASANSAB KAMBARGANNAVI AGED: 68 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE. 2. DADAPHEER S/O. HASANSAB KAMBARGANNAVI AGED: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 3. BUDDIMA W/O. MAKTUMSAB NESARAGI, AGED: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE. 4. MAMATAZ W/O. BABASAB KILLEDAR AGED: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE. 5. MAULASAB, S/O. HASANSAB KAMBARGANNAVI AGED: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE 6. MEHABOOBSUBANI S/O. HASANSAB KAMBARGANNAVI, AGED: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5912 WP No. 105789 of 2024 7. HUSSAINSABH S/O. HASANSAB KAMBARGANNAVI AGED: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 8. BABE AYESHA W/O. KUTUBUDDIN KADROLLI AGED: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE. 9. USSINABANU W/O. SULTANSAB MULLA AGED: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE. ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF SINGANHALLI VILLAGE – 580011 OF DHARWAD TALUKA & DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI MANJUNATH A. KARIGANNAVAR, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY IT SECRETARY TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD - 580 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD - 580 001. 4. THE TAHSHILDAR TAHSHILDAR OFFICE, DHARWAD 580 001. PEERSAB MALIKSAB KAMBARGANNAVI DEAD BY LEGAL HEIRS 5. MEHABOOB SUBHANI @ MEHABOOBHKHAN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5912 WP No. 105789 of 2024 S/O PEERSABH KAMBARGANNAVI, AGED: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 6. MAKTUMSABH S/O. PEERSABH KAMBARGANNAVI AGED: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 7. DADAPHEER S/O. PEERSABH KAMBARGANNAVI, AGED: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 8. BABU @ BABUSAB S/O. PEERSABH KAMBARGANNAVI, AGED: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 9. HASANSABH S/O. PEERSABH KAMBARGANNAVI AGED: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE. RESPONDENTS NO. 5 TO 9 ARE RESIDENTS OF SINGANHALLI VILLAGE – 580011 OF DHARWAD TALUKA & DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SHRI ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADV. FOR R5 TO R9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 06.02.2023 BEARING NO.HADA.VAHI/119/22-23 VIDE ANNEXURE-K ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT-4 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT-4 TO RE-CONSIDER REPRESENTATION DATED 23.03.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5912 WP No. 105789 of 2024 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 order dated 06.02.2023 passed by respondent No.4 – the Tahsildar, Dharwad produced as per Annexure-K and also to direct him to reconsider the representation dated 23.03.2022 produced as per Annexure-H. 2. Heard Sri Manjunath A. Karigannavar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4, and Sri Arun L. Neelopant, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that, Doddamaliksab is the grandfather of the petitioners and respondent Nos.5 to 9. He has filed Form No.7 along with one Umarsab as they were cultivating the land together. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy right jointly in their favour. Form No.10 was also issued. But, the record of Rights was mutated as per ME.No.765, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5912 WP No. 105789 of 2024 certified during 1996, showing the name of Peersab son of Doddamaliksab i.e., father of respondent Nos.5 to 9. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, Hasansab, the first son of Doddamaliksab being the father of the petitioners, challenged the said order before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, allowed the appeal cancelling ME.No.765, and holding that the names of Hasansab and Peersab are to be entered in the Record of Rights. Accordingly, Hasansab filed representation before the Tahsildar as per Annexure-H on 23.03.2022. Ignoring the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the Tahsildar after getting the legal opinion rejected the claim of the Hasansab to enter his name in the Record of Rights and issued the endorsement dated 06.02.2023 to the effect that there was phodi of the Record of Rights as per MRH.No.36/2011-12. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. It is stated that when the Assistant Commissioner has passed the order dated 12.01.2001, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5912 WP No. 105789 of 2024 cancelling ME.No.765, directed the Tahsildar to enter the names of both the brothers, the petitioners are entitled for relief as claimed. Accordingly they pray for allowing the writ petition 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 – State opposing the petition submitted that, the order of the Assistant Commissioner, cancelling ME.No.765 and directing to enter the names of the Hasansab and Peersab in the Record of Rights, was challenged by Peersab, the father of respondent Nos.5 to 9. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner, the brothers have compromised the dispute amicably and entered into an agreement as per Annexure-R3 dated 18.07.2002. They have also filed a joint memo as per Annexure-R4 before the Deputy Commissioner requesting to pass necessary orders in terms of Annexure-R3. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner passed the order as per Annexure-R5 on 01.02.2003. In view of these developments, the names of - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5912 WP No. 105789 of 2024 the father of petitioners, and respondent Nos.5 to 9, came to be entered in the Record of Rights on the basis of the compromise, that was entered into, and also the order of the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-R5. Suppressing all these facts and circumstances, the petitioners have submitted the representation only on 23.03.2022 as per Annexure-H to enter their names on the basis of order dated 12.01.2001. There is inordinate delay of more than 21 years, moreover, further developments in the matter was suppressed deliberately. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any reliefs. Accordingly, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. On perusal of the materials on record, even though it is contended taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the order as per Annexure-F on 12.01.2001, the documents that are produced by the contesting respondent Nos.5 to 9 disclose that their father Peersab had challenged the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner cancelling ME.No.765 and directing to enter - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5912 WP No. 105789 of 2024 the name of Hasansab and Peersab in the Record of Rights before the Deputy Commissioner. As per Annexure-R3, both Hasansab and Peersab under whom petitioner and respondent Nos.5 to 9 are claiming right, have entered into compromise, and have settled the dispute amicably way back on 18.07.2002 as per Joint Memo - Annexure- R4. Annexure-R4 is the copy of the joint memo filed by both the brothers before the Deputy Commissioner. Upon which, the Deputy Commissioner passed the order dated 01.02.2003 as per Annexure-R5. 8. Under these circumstances, the petitioners could not have challenged the endorsement - Annexure-K, issued by respondent No.4. Hence, I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3