- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1069 WP No. 109765 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.109765 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. BASVARAJ S/O. HAMPANNA, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSAKERE VILLAGE, MARALIHOBALI, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL-583268. 2. SMT. VEERAMMA W/O. BASAVARAJ AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HOSAKERE VILLAGE, MARALIHOBALI, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL-583268. 3. SHRI. YUVARAJ S/O. HAMPANNA AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSAKERE VILLAGE, MARALIHOBALI, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL-583268. 4. SMT. BHUVANESHWARI W/O. YUVARAJA AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HOSAKERE VILLAGE, MARALIHOBALI, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL-583268. 5. SHRI. HAMPANNA S/O. BASAPPA AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSAKERE VILLAGE, MARALIHOBALI, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL-583268. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.05 11:01:13 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1069 WP No. 109765 of 2025 6. SMT. SHANKRAMMA W/O. HAMPANNA AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. HOSAKERE VILLAGE, MARALIHOBALI, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL-583268. 7. SMT. KAAMINI W/O. KEERTIKUMAR PATIL AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MARUTESHWARA NAGAR, KANAKAGIRI ROAD, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL-583283. 8. SMT. SADHANA PATEL W/O. VINOD KUMAR PATEL AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O. MARUTESHWARA NAGAR, KANAKAGIRI ROAD, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL-583283. 9. SHRI. GAVISIDDAPPA S/O. VEERESH AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. 1ST WARD, OOLENUR, TQ: KARATAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583229. 10. SHRI. VEERABHADRAPPA S/O. BASAPPA AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTRAYYA CAMP, @ POST HOSAKERA, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL-583268. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETAN T LIMBIKAI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. JANA JAGRUTHI SAMITHI (R) REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT SHRI. GANESH MACCHI S/O. K NAGENDRAPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS, R/O. NEAR AMBEDKAR CIRCLE, ANJANEYAGUDI, TQ: GANGAVATI, DIST: KOPPAL-583227. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1069 WP No. 109765 of 2025 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583231. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL-583231. 4. THE TAHASHILDAR OFFICE OF TAHASHILDAR, GANGAVATI TALUK, KOPPAL-583227. 5. REGIONAL COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, MINI VIDHANSOUDHA, 2ND FLOOR, KALABURAGI-585102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. YALAGI KAVYA SHIVAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. H.N.GULARADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R2 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-A BEARING NO.PÀA/¥ÁæCPÀ/¨sÀÆ-¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuɪÉÄîä£À«/05/2025/ 26 DATED 24.06.2025 AND SO ALSO, ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN REVISION PETITION NO.5/2025-26 PENDING BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.5 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1069 WP No. 109765 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have called in question the order dated 24.06.2025 passed in No.PÀA/¥ÁæCPÀ/¨sÀÆ-¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuɪÉÄîä£À«/05/2025/ 26 (Annexure-A) and also the further proceedings in Revision Petition No.5/2025-26 pending before the respondent No.5-Regional Commissioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5-State. 3. The present writ petition has a chequered history, which is required to be noticed in brief; (i) On 18.09.2019, the respondent No.1-Society submitted a representation before Tahashildar, Gangavati, alleging that the petitioners were holding land in excess of ceiling limit prescribed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 and sought initiation of enquiry against them; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1069 WP No. 109765 of 2025 (ii) As the said representation was not considered, respondent No.1-Society approached this Court in WP No.51285/2019 seeking a direction to respondent No.1 to 4 to consider the representation dated 18.09.2019. The writ petition was allowed directing the Tahashildar to consider the representation; (iii) Thereafter, alleging non-consideration, respondent No.1-Society initiated Contempt proceeding in CCC No.824/2022. During the pendency of contempt proceedings, Tahasildar, Gangavati considered and rejected the representation, pursuant to which, the contempt proceedings came to be dropped; (iv) Aggrieved by the rejection of the order, the respondent No.1-Society approached this - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1069 WP No. 109765 of 2025 Court in WP.No.105529/2022 C/w W.P.No.105780/ 2022 seeking to quash the order passed by the Tahashildar. The said writ petitions were disposed of reserving liberty to respondent No.1-Society to file public interest litigation (PIL); (v) In pursuance thereof, respondent No.1- Society filed PIL in WP No.8400/2024. The Division Bench rejected the PIL holding that an alternative efficacious remedy is provided under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961; (vi) Thereafter, 03.10.2024, the respondent No.1-Society preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Koppal District. The Assistant Commissioner, Koppal rejected the appeal holding that partition suit in OS No.52/2020 was pending before the Court of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1069 WP No. 109765 of 2025 Senior Civil Judge, Gangavati and that the issue regarding ceiling would be determined only after conclusion of the civil proceedings; (vii) Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Tahasildar and the Assistant Commissioner, the respondent No.1-Society preferred Revision petition No.5/2025-2026 before respondent No.5-Regional Commissioner, which culminated in impugned interim order dated 24.06.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.5-Regional Commissioner issued notice to the petitioners directing to appear on 24.06.2025 at 03.00 p.m. However, even before the schedule appearance, respondent No.5 passed the impugned interim order on 24.06.2025. It is submitted that by virtue of the said interim order an entry reflecting “Court’s Stay” was made in column No.11 of the RTC extracts (Annexure-P). - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1069 WP No. 109765 of 2025 5. He further submits that the impugned interim order was passed at about 12:00 a.m. on 24.06.2025 whereas the petitioners were directed to appear only at 3:00 p.m. on the same day. There is no endorsement or material to indicate that the petitioners were heard prior to the passing of the interim order. According to the learned counsel, the Tahasildar as well as the Assistant Commissioner had rightly held that the issue regarding excess holding could be adjudicated only after the disposal of the pending partition suit, and therefore, the grant of interim order by respondent No.5 is arbitrary and without application of mind. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 to 5-State seek to support the impugned order by contending that the petitioners have filed their vakalat and written objection, and therefore, the interim order cannot be said to have been passed without hearing them. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1069 WP No. 109765 of 2025 7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has also seeks to justify the impugned order. 8. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. 9. The records disclose, respondent No.5 issued notice on 13.06.2025 directing the petitioners to appear on 24.06.2025 at 3:00 p.m. though the order sheet reflects filing of vakalath and written objections by the petitioners, the RTC extracts (Annexure-P, P1 to P10) clearly indicate a entry of “Court’s stay” pursuant to the order dated 24.06.2025 at 12.00 a.m., which reads thus: “Court stay as per order noRCK/LRM/5/2025/26dated Jun 24 2025 12:AM” 10. When notice was issued fixing the matter for hearing at 3:00 p.m., the revenue entries indicating a stay at 12:00 a.m. on the same day, would clearly demonstrate that the interim order preceded the hearing. There no material to indicate that the petitioners were afforded an - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1069 WP No. 109765 of 2025 opportunity of hearing before the interim order passed. In the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order cannot be sustained. 11. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed in No. PÀA/¥ÁæCPÀ/¨sÀÆ-¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuɪÉÄîä£À«/05/2025-26 (Annexure-A) is hereby set-aside. iii. Consequently, all the proceedings taken pursuant to the interim order in Revision Petition No.5/2025-26 shall stands vacated. iv. The Tahsildar Gangavati Taluk is directed forthwith delete/remove the entry relating to “Court’s stay” made in column No.11 of RTSs, pertaining to the schedule properties. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1069 WP No. 109765 of 2025 v. The Regional Commissioner shall reconsider the Revision Petition No.5/2025-26 on its own merits after affording due opportunity of hearing to all parties and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. vi. The State Government, revenue department is directed to examine the circumstances under which the interim order dated 24.06.2025 came to be reflected in the RTC records at 12:00 a.m., when the notice issued by the Regional Commissioner fixed the hearing at 3:00 p.m. on the same day and to take appropriate action, and the submit the same to the Registry of this Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this Order. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AM/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55