- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:161 WP No. 107280 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.107280 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI BASAVAPRABHU S/O. LAKHAMGOUDA SARDESAI, AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PLOT NO.24, MRUTUNJAY NAGAR, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590 006. 2. SHRI SHANKARGOUDA S/O. LAKHAMGOUDA SARDESAI, AGE: 74 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PLOT NO.24, MRUTUNJAY NAGAR, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590 006, BOTH REPRESENTED BY THEIR G.P.A. HOLDER, SHRI NIKHIL S/O. SHANKARGOUDA SARDESAI, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PLOT NO.24, MRUTUNJAY NAGAR, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590 006. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHEKHARGOUDA NAGANURI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI DATTATRAYA S/O. APPA KHOT, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:161 WP No. 107280 of 2024 1. SMT. KALPANA W/O. DATTATRAYA KHOT, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HUNNARAGI-591 215, TQ: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, DC COMPOUND BELAGAVI-590 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKODI SUB-DIVISION, CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 201. 4. THE TAHASILDAR NIPPANI, TQ: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 237. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R2-R4; R1-DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION/OBJECTIONS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND E1 IN RESPECT OF LAND R.S.NO.280/1+2+3/B (OLD R.S.NO.280/1+2K) MEASURING 5 ACRES 04 GUNTAS OF HUNNARAGI VILLAGE, TAL: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI; ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION OR ORDER THE PETITIONER IS FOUND ENTITLED TO. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:161 WP No. 107280 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.2 to 4. Notice to respondent No.1 is dispensed within in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs: i. a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing the Respondents No.2 to 4 to consider the representation/objections submitted by the Petitioners vide ANNEXURE-E and E1 in respect of land R.S.No.280/1+2+3/B (old R.S.No.280/1+2k) measuring 5 Acres 04 Guntas of Hunnaragi village, Tal: Nippani, Dist: Belagavi; ii. Issue any other writ or direction or order the petitioner is found entitled to. 3. The only grievance of the petitioners is that the objection to a representation submitted by the petitioners in respect of the application filed by respondent No.1 seeking for entry of her name in the revenue records in respect of R.S.No.280/1+2+3/B old R.S.No.280/1+2/C - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:161 WP No. 107280 of 2024 situated at Hunnaragi village, Tq:Nippani, Dist: Belagavi has not been and will not beconsidered. 4. In my considered opinion, the above writ petition is premature in as much no orders have been passed as yet, and it is only the apprehension on part of the petitioner that the objections will not be considered. Whenever any objections are filed, it would be the obligation of any officer of the State to consider the objections in respect of any application filed by any other person. If the concerned officers were not to consider the representation, the same would amount to abdication of duties and as such, the presumption on part of the petitioners that respondents No.2 to 4 will not consider the objections filed by the petitioners, cannot be sustained on the face of the present petition. 5. In the event of respondents No.2 to 4 not considering the representation/objections, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:161 WP No. 107280 of 2024 petitioners would always have a remedy of an appeal and of course action would also have to be taken against respondents No.2 to 4 for not considering the objections filed. 6. With the above observations, the petition stands disposed of. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not adverted to or made any observation on the merits of the matter, the same would have to be considered by the respondents in accordance with law. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47