- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1503-DB WA No. 100636 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 100636 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHIVAPUTRAPPA S/O KOTRAPPA PUJAR, AGE : 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALAKERI VILLAGE, TALUK : HANAGAL, DIST : HAVERI-581126. 2. SHIVANADAPPA S/O BASAVENNEPPA MALLIHALLI, AGE : 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALAKERI VILLAGE, TALUK : HANAGAL, DIST : HAVERI-581126. 3. NAVEEN KUMAR MALLIHALLI AGE : 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALAKERI VILLAGE, TALUK : HANAGAL, DIST : HAVERI-581126. 4. JOGENDRA S/O RUDRAPPA VEERESH AGE : 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALAKERI VILLAGE, TALUK : HANAGAL, DIST : HAVERI-581126. 5. RAJU KAMMAR AGE : 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALAKERI VILLAGE, TALUK : HANAGAL, DIST : HAVERI-581126. 6. NANDEESHA S/O UJANEPPA KOPPADA Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1503-DB WA No. 100636 of 2024 AGE : 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O. KALAKERI VILLAGE, TALUK : HANAGAL, DIST : HAVERI-581126. 7. SURESH S/O GULAPPA AGE : 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALAKERI VILLAGE, TALUK : HANAGAL, DIST : HAVERI-581126. 8. GURUPADAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA HALLUR AGE : 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALAKERI VILLAGE, TALUK : HANAGAL, DIST : HAVERI-581126. 9. RAJENDRA S/O PAKKIARAPPA KANDOJI AGE : 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALAKERI VILLAGE, TALUK : HANAGAL, DIST : HAVERI-581126. 10. SURESHAPPA BASAVARAJAPPA KANDOJI AGE : 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALAKERI VILLAGE, TALUK : HANAGAL, DIST : HAVERI-581126. 11. SAHADEVAPPA S/O VEERABHADRAPPA HALLUR AGE : 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALAKERI VILLAGE, TALUK : HANAGAL, DIST : HAVERI-581126. 12. PRAKASH S/O SIDDAPPA KOPPAD AGE : 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALAKERI VILLAGE, TALUK : HANAGAL, DIST : HAVERI-581126. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M.R. HIREMATHAD, ADVOCATE) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1503-DB WA No. 100636 of 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY. ITS SECRETARY, DEPT. OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581110. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI-581104. 4. THE TAHASILDAR HANGAL, HAVERI DISTRICT-581104. 5. THE COMMITTEE FOR REGULARIZATION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HANAGAL TALUK, DIST. HAVERI-581104. 6. WAZIRSAB S/O BUDANSAB DAVANGERI AGE. 67 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O KALKERI VILLAGE, TALUK HANAGAL, DIST. HAVERI-581120. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO, THE ORDER DATED 09-12-2021, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE, IN WRIT PETITION NO.100700/2021 (KLR-RES), MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY ALLOWING THE THIS APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1503-DB WA No. 100636 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) The appellants have filed this intra Court appeal calling in question the writ Court’s order dated 09.12.2021 in W.P. No.100700/2021 essentially contending that directions could not have been issued without hearing them inasmuch as they are affected by it. Sri. G.K. Hiregoudar, the learned Principal Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of the grievance and the decision of the Apex Court in Shideo Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others1. The Supreme Court in this decision has held that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it2. In the light of the appellants’ grievance and 1 AIR 1963 SC 1909 2 This proposition is also reiterated in one of the recent decisions in Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and another vs. Pratibha Industries Limited and others, reported in [2019] 3 SCC 203 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1503-DB WA No. 100636 of 2024 the exposition as aforesaid, the writ appeal and the pending applications stand disposed of with just liberties to the appellants to avail remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2