- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3560 WP No. 106454 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 106454 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. GANAPAYYA S/O. MANJU GOUDA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEBBARHITLU, GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR GOUDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTARA KANNADA, TALUK. KARWAR-581301. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BHATKAL, TALUK BHATKAL – 581320. 3. THE TAHSILDAR HONAVAR, TALUK HONAVAR – 581334. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS HONAVAR, TALUK HONAVAR – 581334. 5. SRI SHAMBHU S/O. MANJU GOUDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT HEBBARHITLU, GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. 6. SRI GANAPAYYA S/O. TIMMAPPA GOUDA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER PRABHAT NAGAR ROAD, HONAVAR HONAVAR TALUK-581341. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.25 15:12:52 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3560 WP No. 106454 of 2024 8. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER DEPT. OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT HONAVAR TALUK-581341. 9. THE CHIEF ENGINEER KONKAN RAILWAY CORPORATION LTD. KARWAR, TALUK KARWAR-581301. 10. SMT. DEVI W/O. HANUMANTH GOUDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT ADIMANE, GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. 11. SMT. GANAPI W/O. DEVA GOUDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. 12. SRI. HANMANTHA S/O. DEVA GOUDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT ADIMANE, GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. 13. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. DEVA GOUDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT ADIMANE, GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. 14. SRI. ANAND S/O. MININ D’SOUZA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RESIDING AT MELINAKERI, GUNDABALA VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK. 15. SMT. PADMAVATI W/O. ANNAPPA GOUDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDING AT SINDANI, GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. 16. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O. NARAYAN BHANDARI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHIVANAGAR, GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3560 WP No. 106454 of 2024 17. SMT. SUJATA W/O. SHRIDHAR GOUDA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTA, ANANTHWADI, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. 18. SMT. SUSHEELA W/O. SHIVA MESTA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. 19. SRI MANJU S/O. RAMA GOUDA AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHIVANAGAR, GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. 20. SRI. GANAPAYYA S/O. SHAMBHU GOUDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHIVANAGAR, GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. 21. SRI. KRISHNA S/O. SHAMBHU GOUDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT KASARKOD VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. 22. SRI SHAMBHU S/O. GANAPAYYA GOUDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHIVANAGAR, GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. 23. SRI. PANDURANG S/O. MAHADEV HONNAVARKAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT GUNAVANTE HONAVAR TALUK-581342. 24. SMT. RAMYA S/O. BHASKAR NAIK AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHIVANAGAR, GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, HONAVAR TALUK-581342. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R4; NOTICE TO R5-R24 IS DISPENSED WITH V/O DATED 21/02/2025) - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3560 WP No. 106454 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN REVISION PETITION NO.RP/14/2024 FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTARA KANNADA; ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SUCH OTHER WRIT DIRECTION OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2024 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT-THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTARA KANNADA IN NO. RP/14/2024- VIDE ANNEXURE-A CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 30/05/2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-L PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN NO. SPECIAL REVENUE ADALAT/AMENDMENT/VIVA /2015-16 AND MODIFYING THE ORDER BY CORRECTING THE RTC AS 0-37-0 TO THE PETITIONER AND 5TH RESPONDENT; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR SUCH OTHER WRIT DIRECTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT-TAHSILDAR HONAVAR TO ENTER THE NAME OF PETITIONER AND 5TH RESPONDENT TO 0-37-0 EXTENT IN SURVEY NO.110 AREA 7-19-0 KHARAB 0-5-0 REMAINING 7-14-0 ASST. 2.06 SITUATED AT GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, MANKI HOBLI, HONAVAR TALUK; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR SUCH OTHER WRIT DIRECTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT-ADLR HONAVAR TO MAKE NECESSARY CHANGES IN THE SURVEY RECORD AND MAP TO 0-37-0 EXTENT IN SURVEY NO.110 AREA 7-19-0 KHARAB 0-5-0 REMAINING 7-14-0 ASST. 2.06 SITUATED AT GUNAVANTE VILLAGE, MANKI HOBLI, HONAVAR TALUK; ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDERS AS ARE DEEMED FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Notice to respondents No.5 to 24 is dispensed with since they will not be affected by any order proposed to be passed by this Court in this petition, their names already being continued in the revenue - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3560 WP No. 106454 of 2024 records and no challenge having been made to their entitlement. 2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a) Call for the entire records in revision petition no.RP/14/2024 filed before the 1st Respondent- Deputy Commissioner Uttara Kannada; b) Issue a Writ of certiorari or such other writ direction or order quashing the order dated 21/10/2024 passed by the 1st Respondent-The Deputy Commissioner Uttara Kannada in no. RP/14/2024- vide Annexure-A confirming the order dated 30/05/2016 vide Annexure-L passed by the 2nd Respondent in No. Special Revenue Adalat/ Amendment/Viva/2015-16 and modifying the order by correcting the RTC as 0-37-0 to the Petitioner and 5th Respondent; c) Issue a Writ of mandamus or such other writ directing the 3rd Respondent-Tahsildar Honavar to enter the name of Petitioner and 5th Respondent to 0-37-0 extent in Survey no.110 Area 7-19-0 Kharab 0-5-0 remaining 7-14-0 Asst. 2.06 situated at Gunavante Village, Manki Hobli, Honavar Taluk; d) Issue a Writ of mandamus or such other writ directing the 4th Respondent - ADLR Honavar to make necessary changes in the survey record and map to 0-37-0 extent in Survey No.110 Area 7-19- 0 Kharab 0-5-0 remaining 7-14-0 Asst. 2.06 situated at Gunavante Village, Manki Hobli, Honavar Taluk; e) Issue any other appropriate orders as are deemed fit in the circumstances of the case and in the interests of justice and equity. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3560 WP No. 106454 of 2024 3. The contention of the petitioner is that; 3.1. Originally the agricultural property was bearing Survey No.110 measuring 7 acres 19 guntas. The Land Tribunal on the basis of Form No.7 which has been filed by Manju Shambhu Gouda, had granted occupancy rights on 30.12.1981 and issued Form No.10 on 29.03.1983 to an extent of 37 guntas. 3.2. Thereafter, the name of Manju Shambhu Gouda had been entered in the record of Rights, Tenancy and Crop (RTC). After his death, the name of his wife and children came to be entered on 15.02.1999. 3.3. The partition having been effected between the family members in terms of M.E.No.4666 dated 23.02.1999, the petitioner’s name got entered into the revenue records. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3560 WP No. 106454 of 2024 3.4. Kandaya Adalat having been conducted, the Revenue Inspector Manki had submitted a report that there is a variation in the measurement of lands and therefore, had indicated that the name of the Government can be entered into in respect of 01 acre 18 guntas. 3.5. It is on that basis that the name of the Government has been entered into for the aforesaid 01 acre 18 guntas, without a notice having been issued to the petitioner, despite the name of the petitioner and his predecessor as such having been in existence in the revenue records. While entering the name of the Government, the name of the petitioner also came to be deleted. 3.6. Challenging same, the petitioner had filed a Revision Petition under Section 136 (3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The first - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3560 WP No. 106454 of 2024 respondent – Deputy Commissioner, dismissed the said Revision Petition, confirming the order of the Special Revenue Adalat, on the ground that the petitioner had filed the Revision Petition after a period of 8 years and as such, there is a delay of 2771 days and no explanation having been given, the delay could not be condoned. 3.7. Secondly, the Revision Court held that a modification of the order of the Revenue Adalat, who was authorised to carry out such changes as may be required, could not be interfered with. 3.8. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The submission of Sri.Chandrashekar Gouda, learned counsel for the petitioner is that, admittedly there being a grant of occupancy rights made under Form - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3560 WP No. 106454 of 2024 No.7 in favour of the father of the petitioner and the name of the father having been entered into the revenue records pursuant to Form No.7 and Form No.10 having been issued, the name continuing in the records could not have been deleted unilaterally without issuing any notice. Though the Kandaya Adalat has the power to do so, it could only do so after issuing a notice of hearing and by passing a reasoned order. The petitioner would be affected by any order passed in relation thereto. His submission is that, even if there is a variation in the area, the same cannot be debited to the account of the petitioner inasmuch as grant of 37 guntas has been made in favour of the father of the petitioner and thereafter credited to the account of the Karnataka government without any basis. 5. Learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 4 supports the order passed by the Revision Court stating that there was inordinate delay of 2771 days which had - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3560 WP No. 106454 of 2024 remained unexplained and as such, the Revision Court has rightly rejected the application for condonation. 6. Heard Sri.Chandrashekhar Gouda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.M. M. Khannur, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 4. Perused the papers. 7. The Revision Court has rejected the revision of the petitioner on the ground that there is inordinate delay of 2771 days. This delay would have to be taken into consideration from the date of knowledge of the petitioner and not from the date of the order passed, inasmuch as, when the order was passed by the Kandaya Adalat, no notice having been issued to the petitioner, the petitioner was not aware of the said order and as such, could not be expected to challenge the said order. The delay of 2771 days may be true when calculated from the date of the order of the Kandaya Adalat, but from the date of knowledge, there cannot be said to be any delay - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3560 WP No. 106454 of 2024 since the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner has challenged said order immediately on coming to know of the said order. 8. Thus the rejection of the application for condonation of delay, in my considered opinion is improper. The Revision Court ought to have verified from the documents as regards the true nature of the claim made by the petitioner and if the documents supported the claim of the petitioner, the documents produced along with the petition indicate that, Form No.7 filed by the father of the petitioner came to be allowed, occupancy rights were granted under Form No.10 issued and thereafter the name of the father of the petitioner was found to have been entered into from the year 1988, as can be seen from Annexure-E and continued till the order passed by the Kandaya Adalat on 30.05.2016. The name of the father of the petitioner having been in existence for nearly a - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3560 WP No. 106454 of 2024 period of 30 years, the same could not have been deleted without notice having been issued. 9. Furthermore, after the name of the petitioner’s father was entered into the revenue records in the year 1988, thereafter there being a partition, the petitioner succeeded to the said property and his name was entered into. Thus the name of the father of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner’s name being in existence in the revenue records from 1988 till 30.05.2016, for a period of nearly 30 years, without issuance of notice the same could not have been cancelled. 10. In that view of the matter, I pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The order dated 21.10.2024 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Uttara Kannada, at Annexure-A, is quashed. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3560 WP No. 106454 of 2024 iii. The order dated 30.05.2016 passed by Special Revenue Adalat is also quashed. iv. Respondent No.2 is directed to cause the entry of the name of the petitioner in respect of 37 guntas, as regards which occupancy rights had been granted to the father of the petitioner. v. Liberty is however reserved to the respondents to issue proper notice to the petitioner, if they so choose to and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14