- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1009-DB WA No. 100240 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI WRIT APPEAL NO. 100240 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: ALLAPPA S/O RAMAPPA PALANHAVI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHIMMAD VILLAGE, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 312. … APPELLANT (BY SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. MANDIRA PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BAGALKOT, ZILLA ADALITA BHAVAN, BAGALKOT, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, JAMKHANDI SUB-DIVISION, AC OFFICE COMPOUND, JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301. 3. THE TALUKA SURVEY OFFICER, JAMKHANDI, AC OFFICE COMPOUND, JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301. 4. PARAPPA S/O KALLAPPA URABIMNAVAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINMAD VILLAGE, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 312. V N BADIGER Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.02 14:58:33 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1009-DB WA No. 100240 of 2025 5. BASAPPA S/O KALLAPPA URABINAVAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINMAD VILLAGE, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 312. 6. MALLAPPA S/O KALLAPPA URABINAVAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINMAD VILLAGE, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 312. 7. HANAMANT S/O KALLAPPA URABINAVAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHINMAD VILLAGE, TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 312. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. DIVYA J. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P. NO.107211/2024 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT; SET ASIDE THE FINAL ORDER DATED 06/02/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT IN ALLOWING THE W.P. NO.107211/2024 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1009-DB WA No. 100240 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN) 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.107211 of 2024, the present writ appeal is filed. 2. Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 along with their ancestors, were said to be the owners of the entire land bearing Survey No. 212/1 of Chimmad Village. They have sold portions of the said land in favour of several persons by executing various registered sale deeds. A portion of the land situated in Survey No. 212/1 was also sold in favour of the appellant herein under registered sale deed dated 27.10.1971 executed by respondent Nos. 4 to 7. There is dispute with regard to the extent of land sold in favour of the appellant under the said sale deed. It is the contention of respondent Nos.4 to 7 that, they have sold the land measuring 5 acres 5 guntas, whereas the appellant claims to have purchased an extent of 6 acres 27 guntas under the said sale deed. In this regard, the appellant has filed O.S. No.9/2020, which is pending on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge ad JMFC, Banahatti. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1009-DB WA No. 100240 of 2025 3. In the meanwhile, respondent Nos.4 to 7 along with certain other adjacent land owners of Survey No.212/1, preferred W.P.No.114494/2019 C/w. WP.No.107957/2016, seeking direction to the revenue authorities to survey several lands in Chimmad Village, including Survey No.212/1. The appellant herein was a party to the said writ proceedings. This Court allowed the said writ petitions and directed the authorities concerned to survey the properties mentioned therein, including Survey No.212/1. The authorities surveyed the other lands as directed by this Court, but they neither marked the boundaries nor submitted any report in respect of Survey No. 212/1, which is owned by different persons. However, an endorsement dated 08.11.2023 was issued stating that due to the pendency of O.S. No.9/2020, the boundaries could not be fixed. 4. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 4 to 7 filed contempt petition in C.C.C. No.100240/2024, wherein this Court closed the contempt petition after accepting the explanation offered by the Government Authorities. Subsequently, respondent Nos.4 to 7 preferred W.P. No.107211 of 2024, without impleading the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1009-DB WA No. 100240 of 2025 appellant herein as party to the proceedings. The learned Single Judge has passed the following order: “i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. A writ of certiorari is issued and the endorsement dated 08.11.2023 issued by Respondent No.2 at Annexure-C is quashed. iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to comply with the orders dated 07.08.2023 and 09.08.2023 passed in W.P. No. 114494 of 2019 c/w W.P. No. 107957 of 2016, dehors the pendency of the suit in O.S. No. 9 of 2020. iv. The joint survey having been completed, subdivision of the properties shall be effected within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 5. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ appeal is filed. It is the case of the appellant that the writ petition was filed by respondent Nos.4 to 7 with mischievous intent, deliberately excluding the appellant from array of parties and thereby misleading this Court. It is contended that respondent Nos. 4 to 7 have obtained favourable orders directing the authorities to Survey No. 212/1 and mark the boundaries with an intention to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1009-DB WA No. 100240 of 2025 gain an unfair advantage in O.S. No.9/2020. It is further submitted that in light of the pendency of the said suit, the survey work and fixation of boundaries as directed by the learned Single Judge cannot be undertaken. On these grounds, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the writ petition be dismissed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7 justifies the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that they have not misled the Court and that all earlier litigations were disclosed in the writ petition. It is also submitted that primary grievance of respondent Nos.4 to 7 is that non- fixing of boundaries in Survey No. 212/1, has resulted in adjoining landowners encroaching upon the properties remaining with respondent Nos. 4 to 7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 to 7 fairly submitted that in respect of the dispute with the appellant regarding the extent of land sold under the sale deed dated 27.10.1971 is concerned, the decision rendered in O.S.No.9/2020 will have to prevail over in any marking of boundary by the revenue authorities. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1009-DB WA No. 100240 of 2025 7. When there is a dispute between the appellant and respondent Nos. 4 to 7 regarding the extent of land purchased by the appellant herein, the same will have to be subject to the result of the original suit. At this juncture, it is not advisable for the authorities concerned to fix boundaries in respect of the said land, as it is uncertain whether the extent to be measured is 5 acres 5 guntas as contended by respondent Nos.4 to 7, or 6 acres 27 guntas as contended by the appellant herein. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge, insofar as it relates to the measurement of the land said to have been sold in favour of the appellant herein, is erroneous. 8. However, Survey No. 212/1 measures a total extent of 15 acres 31 guntas and the remaining land is owned by several other persons, including respondent Nos.4 to 7 herein. Non-measurement of the undisputed extent of land by other owners may not be proper, as it may facilitate encroachments by certain third persons and give rise to further disputes. 9. In this regard, where there is certainty with respect to the extent of land held by other persons in Survey No. 212/1 including respondent Nos. 4 to 7 herein, we do not find any error - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1009-DB WA No. 100240 of 2025 in implementing the order of the learned Single Judge, subject to the other landowners raising any dispute regarding the extent of land owned by them. Thus, the order of the learned Single Judge requires modification to that extent. Hence, the following: ORDER i) The writ appeal is partly allowed. ii) The authorities concerned shall not measure the land in dispute between the appellant and respondent Nos.4 to 7 in Survey No.212/1 of Chimmad Village, till disposal of O.S. No.9/2020, pending on the file of the Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Banahatti or till further interim order passed therein. iii) The Revenue Authorities shall measure the remaining undisputed extent of land in Survey No. 212/1 as per the order passed in W.P. No. 107211 of 2024, subject to any dispute regarding the extent of land that may be raised by the concerned owners. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1009-DB WA No. 100240 of 2025 iv) Such survey shall be conducted only after issuing notice to all concerned parties. v) The order of the learned Single Judge passed in W.P. No. 107211 of 2024 stands modified accordingly. Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE Sd/- (B. MURALIDHARA PAI) JUDGE VB/CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 19