- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:109 WP No. 84429 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 84429 OF 2013 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: DEVENDRA S/O. MAJUN @ MANJUNATH NAIK AGED ABOUT: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SHARADAHOLE SHIRALI-I, BHATKAL, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA, BY HIS GPA HOLDER MUKUND, S/O. MANJU @ MAJUNATH NAIK, AGED ABOUT: 41 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. SHARADAHOLE, SHIRALI-I, BHATKAL, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P.VADIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01. 2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORD, KARWAR. 3. THE TAHASILDAR BHATKAL, OFFICE OF THE TAHASILDAR, MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.24 11:28:24 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:109 WP No. 84429 of 2013 BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 4. NAGAPPA S/O. TIMMAYYA NAIK AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KEREGADDEMANE, MUDSHIRALI, POST: BENGERE-II, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. 5. MANJUNATH S/O. SANNATAMMA NAIK AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KEREGADDEMANE, MUDSHIRALI, POST: BENGRE-II, TQ: BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KARWAR, UTTARA KANNADA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 AND R6; SRI. VEERANAGOUDA B.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V.P.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTARA KANNADA, KARWAR/RESP.NO.6 HEREIN IN NO.RB/TECH APPEAL/CR-5/09-10, DATED 07/10/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-H 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:109 WP No. 84429 of 2013 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question the order dated 07.10.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Uttarakannada, Karwar (respondent No.6) in RB/Tech Appeal/CR-5/09-10 [Annexure-H], whereby the Tahsildar of Bhatkal was directed to conduct a fresh survey and durasti in respect of Sy.No.1070/A1 of Bengre-II village of Bhatkal Taluk. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and perused the material on record. 3. Brief facts; An extent of 3 acres 16 guntas of the forest land in Sy. No.1070 of Bengre-II village was granted to one Timmayya Nagappa Naik by the Deputy Commissioner, Karwar. Upon his death, the petitioner sought mutation of his name in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:109 WP No. 84429 of 2013 revenue records. After durasti and phodi, the granted land came to be assigned Sy. No.1070/A1. 4. The Tahsildar’s report initially indicated that Sy.No.1070/A1 was adjoining Sy.No.898 on the southern side. Subsequently an endorsement was issued stating that the land was adjoining Sy. No.1070 instead of Sy. No.898 which led to the dispute. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 being the sons of the original grantee, instituted OS No.29/2005 seeking cancellation of a will and declaration. The petitioner instituted OS No.91/2007 against respondent Nos.4 and 5 seeking declaration and injunction in respect of Sy. No.1070/A1. 5. In OS No.91/2007, a Court Commissioner was appointed, a spot inspection was conducted by the Taluka Surveyor, and a detailed sketch and report were submitted. The Trial Court, by the judgment dated 13.09.2012, though declined declaration of title, granted permanent injunction holding that the location and boundaries of Sy. No.1070/A1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:109 WP No. 84429 of 2013 were established, and specifically recorded that the southern side is Sy. No.898. The judgment has attained finality. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of land bearing Sy. No.1070/A1 measuring 3 acres 16 guntas and that the southern boundary of the said land is Sy. No.898. It is submitted that the very issue relating to the location, situation and the boundaries of the said land has already been adjudicated by the competent Civil Court in OS No.91/2007. It is contended that despite of the binding of Civil Court decree, respondent Nos.4 and 5 initiated proceedings under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘Act’) and the Deputy Commissioner by placing reliance on the earlier Tahsildar’s letter dated 09.08.2007 has directed a fresh survey and durasti, which amounts to reopening an issue concluded by the Civil Court. It is submitted that such an exercise is impermissible in law and the revenue authorities are bound by the Civil Court's finding. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:109 WP No. 84429 of 2013 7. The learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 6 sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. It is submitted that the direction for fresh survey and durasti was issued in view of the Tahsildar’s report/ letter dated 09.08.2007, which indicated discrepancies in the boundaries mentioned in the kami jasti patra. It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, has authority to order a fresh survey in order to ensure correctness of the revenue records and that the impugned order does not warrant interference. 8. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.4 and 5 supported the impugned order and contended that the Trial Court in OS No.91/2007 has rejected the petitioner's claim for declaration of title and only a decree of permanent injunction has been granted. It is submitted that the petitioner, therefore does not have a clear declaration of ownership over the land. It is further contended that since - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:109 WP No. 84429 of 2013 the title itself was not declared in favour of the petitioner, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in directing a fresh survey and durasti to ascertain the boundaries and location of Sy. No.1070/A1 and that no illegality or perversity can be attributed to the impugned order. 9. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions urged and perused the material on record. The question that arises for consideration is; Whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in directing a fresh survey and durasti of Sy. No.1070/A1, when the issue relating to location, situation and boundaries of the said land have already been adjudicated by a competent Civil Court? 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner instituted OS No.91/2007 seeking declaration and permanent injunction in respect of Sy. No.1070/A1 measuring 3 acres 16 guntas. In the said suit, the Trial Court appointed a Court Commissioner - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:109 WP No. 84429 of 2013 who conducted spot inspection with assistance of the Taluka Surveyor and submitted a detailed report along with a sketch indicating the boundaries of the suit property. 11. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the Commissioner's report, survey sketch, RTC extract and oral evidence recorded a categorical finding that the location and boundaries of Sy. No.1070/A1 stood established, and specifically held that the southern boundary of the said land is Sy. No.898. On such finding, the Trial Court granted permanent injunction in favour of the petitioner restraining interference with his possession. The said judgment and decree had attained finality. 12. Though, the Trial Court declined to grant a declaration of title, the findings recorded therein with regard to identity, location and boundaries of the property are binding on the parties as well as the revenue authorities. A decree of injunction when founded upon detailed enquiry into - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:109 WP No. 84429 of 2013 the location and boundaries of the property cannot be ignored or diluted in a collateral proceedings. 13. The Deputy Commissioner, while exercising revisional jurisdiction under the Act was bound by the findings of the Civil Court. Revenue authorities are not competent to reopen or re-adjudicate issue conclusively decided by the Civil Court, nor can they undertake an exercise which would have an effect of nullifying a Civil Court decree. 14. The impugned order directing a fresh survey and durasti is found primarily on the Tahsildar’s letter dated 09.08.2007, which admittedly precedes the judgment of the Trial Court dated 13.09.2012. Once the Civil Court adjudicated the boundary dispute after a full-fledged trial, reliance on an earlier communication/ letter to unsettle the adjudicated position is legally impermissible. 15. The contention urged on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 that the petitioner was not granted declaration - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:109 WP No. 84429 of 2013 of title and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in directing a fresh survey cannot be accepted. The issue before the revenue authorities was not one of title, but of boundaries and location, which already stood settled by the Civil Court. Absence of a declaration of title, does not confer jurisdiction on the revenue authorities to reopen the settled boundary disputes. 16. In the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the Deputy Commissioner acted in excess of jurisdiction in directing a fresh survey and durasti of Sy. No.1070/A1, overlooking the binding judgment and decree passed in OS No.91/2007. 17. Consequently, the impugned order dated 07.10.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, is unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Court passed the following; - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:109 WP No. 84429 of 2013 ORDER i. The Writ Petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 07.10.2013 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Uttarakannada, Karwar [Annexure-H] is hereby quashed. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA PJ/ Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27