- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4778 WP No. 66745 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 66745 OF 2011 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SOMASHEKHAR S/O. GUDDAPPA HAVANUR, AGE: ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL and BUSINESS, 2. MALATESH S/O. GUDDAPPA HAVANUR, AGE: ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL and BUSINESS, BOTH ARE R/O: UMASHANKAR NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BELGAUM. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 3. LAMANI KRISHNAPPA BHEEMAPPA, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: GANGAJALA TANDA, RANEBENNUR TALUK, DISTRICT: HAVERI. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4778 WP No. 66745 of 2011 4. IRAVVA ISHWARAPPA LAMANI, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: GANGAJALA TANDA, RANEBENNUR TALUK, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 5. TIKKAPPA BHEEMAPPA LAMANI, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: GANGAJALA TANDA, RANEBENNUR TALUK, DIST: HAVERI. 6. NINGAPPA BASAPPA HAVANUR, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: NEAR P and T QUARTERS, P.B.ROAD, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 7. ANNAPPA BASAPPA HAVANUR, AGE: MAJOR, R/O: NEAR P and T QUARTERS, P.B.ROAD, RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R5;) R4 – SERVED) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BELGAUM (RESPONDENT NO.1) BEARING NO.APL-R-15;04-05 DATED 10.08.2004 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT BANGALORE IN APPEAL NO.345/2005 DATED 15.06.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, AS NULL AND VOID. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4778 WP No. 66745 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking to quash the order dated 10.08.2004 passed by the Joint Director of Land Records, Belagavi – respondent No.1, produced as per Annexure-D and the order dated 15.06.2011 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘KAT’ for short), in Appeal No.345/2005, produced as per Annexure-E. 2. Heard Sri. Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri. Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 5. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that; 3.1. The petitioners, along with their brothers, owned the land in R.S.No.657/1, totally measuring 6.13 acres in Ranebennur village. A - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4778 WP No. 66745 of 2011 partition took place between the brothers in the year 1997-98, and a waradi was given to effect mutation on the basis of the partition. Accordingly, R.S.No.657/1 was mutated into three parts, i.e., R.S.No 657/1A, measuring 3.20 acres; R.S.No.657/1B, measuring 1.30 acres; and R.S.No.657/1C, measuring 1.03 acres. 3.2. It is stated that, RS No.657/1C, measuring 1.03 acres, had fallen to the share of the petitioners. A survey was conducted, and the PT Sheet as per Annexure-A was prepared. Another survey was conducted, and the PT Sheet as per Annexure-C was prepared, showing a portion of the land as encroached upon by the adjacent owner of Survey No.657/2, i.e., Respondent No.3. 3.3. Since it was shown that the owner of Survey No.657/2 had encroached upon a portion of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4778 WP No. 66745 of 2011 Survey No.657/1C, Respondent No.3 challenged the said Annexure-A, by preferring an appeal before the Joint Director of Land Records (JDLR), who allowed the appeal, set aside the mutation entries, and also the PT Sheet in Annexure-A, as per the order dated 10.08.2004, produced as Annexure-D. 3.4. The petitioners have challenged the said order at Annexure-D, before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT), which passed the order as per Annexure-E, dated 15.06.2011, confirming the order passed by the JDLR. 3.5. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court challenging both Annexures - D and E. 4. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, Respondent No.3 has not challenged Annexure-C, the PT Sheet prepared based on the application filed by the petitioners, where the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4778 WP No. 66745 of 2011 encroachment of the land by Respondent No.3 is clearly demarcated. However, the fact remains that Respondent No.3 has challenged Annexure-A on the ground that, it is not in accordance with the original PT Sheet of the year 1941. If the original PT Sheet of 1941 is taken into consideration, there was no encroachment whatsoever by Respondent No.3 on Survey No.657/1C. Considering these aspects of the matter, the JDLR passed the impugned order as per Annexure-D, setting aside the mutation of Survey No. 657/1A to 1C, and the PT Sheet at Annexure-A, directing the ADLR to re-survey the land after issuing notice to both parties, based on the PT Sheet of the year 1941. In the appeal preferred by the petitioners, the KAT confirmed the order of the JDLR. The only grievance urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners now is that, if the PT Sheet of the year 1941 alone is taken into consideration, it will prejudice the rights of the petitioners, as there may - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4778 WP No. 66745 of 2011 be several title deeds that came into existence subsequent to 1941. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 has no objection for the ADLR to take into consideration the PT Sheet of the year 1941 and also the subsequent sale deed and other title deeds pertaining to Survey Nos. 657/1 and 657/2. 6. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the order of the JDLR and the KAT could be modified to the extent that the ADLR, while surveying the land with notice to both parties, could survey the land based on the PT Sheet of the year 1941, with reference to the subsequent title deeds in respect of Survey Nos.657/1 and 657/2 of Ranebennur village. 7. In view of the above, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed in part. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4778 WP No. 66745 of 2011 ii. The impugned order dated 10.08.2004 at Annexure-D passed by the Joint Director of Land Records and the order dated 15.06.2011 at Annexure-E passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, are modified to the extent that the ADLR shall conduct a fresh survey, after issuing notice to both parties, based on the PT Sheet of the year 1941 and also by taking into consideration the sale deed or any other title deeds in respect of Survey Nos.657/1 and 657/2 of Ranebennur Village. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9