- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5841 WP No. 15589 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 15589 OF 2010 (KVOA-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MAHADEVI W/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD and AGRICULTURE, R/O. AMTUR VILLAGE, TALUK: BAILAHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591102. 2. SMT. RUDRAVVA W/O. IRAGOUDA PATIL AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD and AGRICULTURE. R/O. AMATUR VILLAGE, TAL: BAILAHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591102. 3. SRI. SHIVANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AMATUR VILLAGE, TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI, SINCE DECEASED AND HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES I.E., PETITIONER NO.1 & 2 ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. 4. KUMARI ASHWINI D/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5841 WP No. 15589 of 2010 OCC: STUDENT, R/O. AMTUR VILLAGE, TAL: BAILAHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. SINCE DECEASED AND HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES I.E., PETITIONER NO.1 & 2 ARE ALREADY ON RECORD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL, SR. COUNSEL FOR Sri. SRINAND A. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI. YALLAPPAGOUDA S/O. FAKIRAGOUDA PATIL @ CHANNAPAGOUDA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R’S SRI. MALLIKARJUN S/O. YALLAPPAGOUDA PATIL SINCE DECEASED BY HIS L.R’S 1(A)(a) SMT. ANASUYA W/O. MALLIKARJUN PATIL AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HANCHINAL, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1(A)(b) SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. MALLIKARJUN PATIL AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANCHINAL, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BLEAGAVI. 1(A)(c) SRI. PRAKASHGOUDA S/O. MALLIKARJUN PATIL AGE: 33 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5841 WP No. 15589 of 2010 OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANCHINAL, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1(A)(d) SMT. SAVITRI W/O. UMESH NEELAGUDD D/O. MALLIKARJUN PATIL, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HUNASHIKATTI, TAL: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG. 1(A)(e) KUMARI NETRA D/O. MALLIKARJUN PATIL, AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HANCHINAL, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1(B) SMT. BASAVVA W/O. SHIDDANAGOUDA PATIL D/O. YALLAPPAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAYANAL, TAL: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 1(C) SRI. PARVATAGOUDA S/O. YALLAPPAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANCHINAL, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1(D) SMT. ANNAPURNA W/O. BASANAGOUDA KOPPANAGOUDA D/O. YALLAPPAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BANAHATTI, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5841 WP No. 15589 of 2010 TAL: NARAGUND, DIST: GADAG. 1(E) SRI. SHANKARAGOUDA S/O. YALLAPPAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANCHINAL, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1(F) SRI. FAKKIRAGOUDA S/O. YALLAPPAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANCHINAL, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1(G) SMT. SUMITRA W/O. SHIDDANAGOUDA PATIL D/O. YALLAPPAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. RAYANAL, TAL: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 1(H) SRI. CHANNABASANAGOUDA S/O. YALLAPPAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HANCHINAL, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 1(I) SMT. KASHAVVA W/O. SURESH KALABHANVI D/O. YALLAPPAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KORIKOPPA, TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5841 WP No. 15589 of 2010 2. THE TAHASILDAR, SAUNDATTI, TAL: SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591126. THE RESPONDENTS NO.1(A)(a) TO 1(A)(e) AND 1(B) TO 1(I) ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LR’S OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AS PER THE ORDER OF THE HON’BLE COURT DATED 06.01.2025 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.N HATTI, HCGP FOR PROPOSED R2; SRI. AKSHAY R. HUDDAR, ADVOCATE FOR GPA HOLDER OF R1(A), (A TO E) AND R1 (B TO I)) ------ THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THERE BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 22.4.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BELGAUM IN MISCELLANEOUS NO.26/2007 AND THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AS AT ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISMISS THE SAID MISCELLANEOUS NO.26/2007 FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS HEREIN, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5841 WP No. 15589 of 2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 22.04.2010, passed by the learned the II Addl. District Judge, Belgaum in Misc.No.26/2007, produced as per Annexure-D. 2. Heard Sri.Vikram Huilgol, learned senior advocate representing the learned counsel Sri.Srinand A Pacchapure for the petitioners, Sri.P.N.Hatti, learned HCGP for proposed respondent No.2 and Sri.Akshay R Huddar, learned counsel for GPA Holder of respondent Nos.1(A) (A to E) and respondent Nos. 1(B to I). Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned senior advocate for the petitioners submits that, one Sri.Shivangouda Fakirgouda Patil is the original Inamdar of the land bearing Sy.No.346, situated at Hanchinal village of Soundatti Taluk, Belgaum District, totally measuring 17 acres 29 guntas. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5841 WP No. 15589 of 2010 He died in the year 1960, leaving behind his son- Basanagouda and wife-Rudrawwa as his legal representatives. Rudrawwa filed an application to the revenue authorities to enter the name of Basanagouda in the revenue records. Accordingly, mutation was effected as per M.R.No.4095. Thus, it is the contention of learned senior advocate for the petitioners that, since from the year 1964-65 till 1973-74, the record of rights in respect of the disputed land was standing in the name of Basanagouda. 4. It is contended that, after the Karnataka Certain Inam Abolition Act 1961 came into force, the Inam land vests with the Government. Basanagouda, who was a minor at that time, through his mother as guardian, has filed an application for re-grant of the land. After due enquiry, the Tahsildar re-granted the land in favour of Basangouda Shivanagouda Patil on 21.05.1980. The said re-grant was never challenged by anybody. Basanagouda Shivanagouda Patil died on 02.01.1990. The petitioners are his legal representatives - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5841 WP No. 15589 of 2010 and they gave varadi to the revenue authorities to enter their names in the revenue records. Accordingly, ME.No.13032 was certified on 26.04.1991, recording the names of the petitioners in the revenue records. 5. The Assistant Commissioner issued an endorsement dated 11.09.2007 directing the respondents to prefer an appeal before the learned District Judge as required under Section 3(2) of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition ‘Act of 1961’ (for short the Act 1961). The learned District Judge registered the Misc. No.26/2007 and passed the impugned order dated 22.04.2010, produced as per Annexure-D, allowing the petition by setting aside the re-grant dated 21.05.1980, and also setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 11.09.1997 directing the private respondents to approach the District Court, and declaring that the private respondents have got the right to get land measuring 10 acres in Sy.No.346.1 and 7 acres 29 guntas in - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5841 WP No. 15589 of 2010 Sy.No.346.2 of Hanchinal village. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. On considering the rival contentions, in the light of the impugned order - Annexure-D it is clear that, learned District Judge passed the order invoking Section 3(2) of the Act of 1961. Section 3(1) of the Act, 1961 refers to the powers of the Deputy Commissioner to decide certain questions and appeal concerning the nature of the land, to find out whether the same was granted or continued in respect of or annexed to a village office by the State. He also empowered to find out whether a person is the holder of the village office or not and whether a person is an authorized, or an unauthorized holder as defined under the Act of 1961 or not. The Deputy Commissioner is required to give an opportunity to the person or to the party affected, and must hold an inquiry in the prescribed manner before deciding these questions. If the Deputy Commissioner, after following the procedure as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1961, passes any order, the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5841 WP No. 15589 of 2010 appeal is provided under Section 3(2) of the Act of 1961 before the learned District Judge. 7. Admittedly, the respondents have never approached the Deputy Commissioner as required under Section 3(1) of Act of 1961. They have filed a representation before the Assistant Commissioner. The endorsement dated 11.09.2007, produced for perusal of the Court discloses that it is only a representation dated 20.03.2007, submitted on 24.08.2007, upon which, the Assistant Commissioner directed Yallappagouda Patil to prefer an appeal before the learned District Judge as provided under Section 3(2) of Act of 1961 seeking cancellation of the order of re-grant. Therefore, even if the contention taken by the contesting respondents is to be accepted that, the Deputy Commissioner has authorized the Assistant Commissioner to consider the representation submitted by the contesting respondents, the procedure as contemplated under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1961 was never followed. There is nothing on record to contend that the private respondents have - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5841 WP No. 15589 of 2010 approached the Deputy Commissioner as required under law, and in turn, the Deputy Commissioner authorized the Assistant Commissioner to deal with the matter. Under such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned District Judge dated 21.05.1980, which was for the first time challenged by submitting a representation to the Assistant Commissioner on 24.08.2007, cannot be upheld. 8. Strangely, the learned District Judge has set aside the endorsement issued by the Assistant Commissioner dated 11.09.2007, and has declared that the appellants therein had right to get the land referred to in the re-grant order. It appears that the learned District Judge has assumed jurisdiction even under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1961 to pass the impugned order which is not in accordance with law. Therefore, I am of opinion that the impugned order suffers from illegality and the same is liable to be set aside. Similarly, the endorsement dated 11.09.2007 said to have been issued by the Assistant Commissioner is also without - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5841 WP No. 15589 of 2010 any basis. However, the contesting respondents are at liberty to work out their remedy in accordance with law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed. ii) The order dated 22.04.2010, passed by the learned II Addl. District Judge, Belgaum in Misc.No.26/2007, produced as per Annexure-D is quashed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE Vb/- CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1