- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1260 WP No. 65609 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 65609 OF 2011 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. APPANNA DUNDAPPA KHAVANI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. 1A. SMT. KASHAVVA APPANNA KHAVANI, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SOLAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAUM. 1B. SRI. DURDUNDI APPANNA KHAVANI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SOLAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAUM. 1C. SRI. BASAVARAJ APPANNA KHAVANI, AGE: 26 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SOLAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAUM. 1D. SMT. SUVARNA W/O. SHANKAR MALAGI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SOLAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELAGAUM. 1E. SMT. BHARATI W/O. SHANKAR MALI, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SOLAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELGAUM. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SAJID GOODWALA AND SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATES) GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A BYAHATTI Date: 2025.01.24 16:35:26 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1260 WP No. 65609 of 2011 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAUM, DISTRICT: BELAGAUM. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELAGAUM, DISTRICT: BELAGAUM. 4. SRI. SURESH BANDAPPA KHAVANI , AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SOLAPUR VILLAGE, TQ: HUKKERI, DISTRICT: BELGAUM. (NOTICE TO BE SERVED AT C/O. SATTEPPA S. KAMATE, R/O. KUNGATOLLI VILLAGE, TQ: CHIKKODI, DISTRICT: BELAGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R3; R4-SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NO.RB.RTA.164/2007-08 DATED 09/06/2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-E BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1260 WP No. 65609 of 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: i. Issue writ of Certiorari quashing the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner No.RB.RTA.164/2007-08 dated 09/06/2011 vide ANNEXURE-E by allowing this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity. ii. Issue any other incidental and consequential direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit to grant in the fact and circumstances of the case and in the aid main relief sought for. 2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 09.06.2011 of the Deputy Commissioner, setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner directing the entry of a well in Column No.11, on the ground that no such entry could be made in Column No. 11. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that, a well has been dug by the predecessor of the petitioners and as such, their right to use the well - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1260 WP No. 65609 of 2011 would have to be entered into Column No.11, and as such, the order of the Deputy Commissioner, setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, who had directed such an entry, is not proper. 4. Heard Sri.Sajid Goodwala, learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3. Perused the papers. 5. The short question that arises for consideration is, “whether an owner of the property or a person claiming any right in the property can seek an entry of a well in Column No.11, when there is specific column provided thereto in Column No.8 of the RTC?”. 6. In the present matter, the right of the parties in respect of the title of the parties in respect of subject property is not in dispute. Column No.11 relates to other rights and charges as regards the property for which the RTC is issued. ‘Other rights’ would necessarily mean and include any rights in the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1260 WP No. 65609 of 2011 property, like easementary rights, mortgage rights, or the like. The existence of a well and causing an entry of the well in Column No.11 would neither confer any rights nor would it amount to ‘any other rights’ coming within the purview of Column No.11. 7. Column No. 8 of the RTC deals with the source of water for irrigation in agriculture. In the present case, there is an entry made of the existence of a well in the said Column No.8. Such an entry having been made in Column No.8, in my considered opinion, would be sufficient, and there is no entry which is required to be made in Column No.11. 8. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. 9. The petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46