- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:628 WP No. 111426 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 111426 OF 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SMT. BASAMMA W/O. PUTTAPPA HADAPAD, AGE: 88 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & HOUSEHOLD, R/O. AIRANI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 2. THE LAND SURVEY TECH ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS HAVERI. 3. SHRI MALLESHAPPA S/O. GUDDAPPA KSHAVARAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AIRANI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 4. SHRI MAHADEVAPPA GUDDAPPA KSHAVARAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AIRANI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.27 11:22:55 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:628 WP No. 111426 of 2014 5. SHRI NAGAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA HADAPAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AIRANI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 6. SHRI GANGAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA HADAPAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AIRANI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 7. MANJAPPA S/O. MALLAPPA HADAPAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AIRANI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 8. SHRI MALATESH S/O. VEERABASAPPA HADAPAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AIRANI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 9. SHRI NAGARAJAPPA S/O. VEERABASAPPA HADAPAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AIRANI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 10. SHRI BASAVARAJAPPA VEERABASAPPA HADAPAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. AIRANI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:628 WP No. 111426 of 2014 11. KU. AKKAMMA D/O. VEERABASAPPA HADAPAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. AIRANI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 12. SHRI KAREGOUDA S/O. BASAVARAJAPPA KADLER, R/O. IRANI VILLAGE, TQ: RANEBENNUR, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT TALUKA PANCHAYAT QUARTERS RANEBENNUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE FOR R3-R7 & R12; NOTICE TO R8-R11 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 20/07/2016) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16.02.2012 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN CASE NO.REV/PHODI/1/2011-12 AS PER ANNEXURE-G BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ASST. DIRECTOR FOR LAND RECORD AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:628 WP No. 111426 of 2014 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question the order dated 16.02.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri, whereby the Revisional Authority interfered with the order passed by the Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR) and directed reconsideration of the survey and sub-division of land bearing Survey No.348 of Airani Village, Ranebennur Taluk. 2. While exercising revisional jurisdiction, the Deputy Commissioner is confined to examining the legality, propriety, and jurisdictional correctness of the order passed by the subordinate authority. In the present case, the ADLR had conducted a detailed enquiry and recorded findings based on public documents, namely, survey sketches, P.T. Sheets, and revenue records dating back to the year 1931. However, the Deputy Commissioner overlooked these survey records and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:628 WP No. 111426 of 2014 instead relied upon hand sketches and village-level materials. 3. The petitioner and private respondents are related to each other and claim rights over different portions of Survey No.348 of Airani Village. According to the petitioner, the land was partitioned as early as in the year 1931 and subdivided in east–west direction, which is reflected in the old survey records, P.T sheets and revenue records. On the other hand, the private respondents sought re-survey and fixation of boundaries contending that the division and possession were in a north–south direction. 4. The Assistant Director of Land Records(ADLR), after due enquiry, rejected the request for re-survey and upheld the existing survey records by order dated 09.03.2011. The said order, however, came to be reversed by the Deputy Commissioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:628 WP No. 111426 of 2014 5. In O.S.No.228 of 2007 filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 7, Issue No.1 was framed as to “whether the plaintiffs prove that they are enjoying the suit properties in east–west direction as averred in the plaint”. 6. The Trial Court, while answering the said issue, held it in the affirmative, recording a finding that the suit properties were divided/plotted/phoded from east to west. Though the suit ultimately came to be dismissed, the finding that the land was subdivided east–west and not north–south stood affirmed. 7. Under such circumstances, the revenue authorities, under the guise of re-adjudication, could not have reopened the proceedings. The ADLR, upon placing reliance on the P.T. sheets and survey sketches, had rightly held that the 1931 documents continued to hold good. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:628 WP No. 111426 of 2014 exceeded the scope of revisional jurisdiction in interfering with the said order. 8. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 16.02.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be set aside, reserving liberty to the parties to approach the Civil Court in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 16.02.2012 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner is hereby quashed. iii. It is made clear that the parties are at liberty to approach the competent Civil Court seeking appropriate reliefs in accordance with law, if so advised, and that the revenue entries shall always - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:628 WP No. 111426 of 2014 be subject to the final outcome of any civil proceedings. iv. It is also made clear that the existing possession of the parties in respect of the scheduled property shall not be disturbed, except in accordance with law. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab CT-vh LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 49