- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982 WP No. 110094 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 110094 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. NAGAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA TERANI AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRGAON, HUKKERI TALUK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 309. 2. SURESH S/O. SIDDAPPA TERANI AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRGAON, HUKKERI TALUK, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 309. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT -591 309. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.11 14:46:49 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982 WP No. 110094 of 2025 3. THE TAHSILDAR, HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591 309. 4. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND EX OFFICE DDLR, BELAGAVI-590 002. 5. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590 002. 6. PRAVEENKUMAR KADAPPA MALAJ 41 YEARS, JAYANAGAR, HUKKERI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591 309. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SMT. P.G.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 5-12-2025 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT 2 INITIATING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING SY.NO.284 MEASURING 1 ACRE 14 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT HUKKERI, BELAGAVI DISTRICT AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982 WP No. 110094 of 2025 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has called in question the notice dated 05.12.2025 issued by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Director of Land Records, Hukkeri Taluk, initiating survey proceedings in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No.284, measuring 1 acre 14 guntas, situated at Hukkeri Taluk, Belagavi District. 2. Brief facts of the case: 2.1. The petitioner claims ownership and possession of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.284. Alleging obstruction to their access by respondent No.6, petitioner has instituted O.S.No.174 of 2021 before the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Hukkeri, seeking the relief of permanent injunction. The said suit is pending adjudication. 2.2. During the pendency of the civil suit, respondent No.6 filed W.P.No.101680 of 2025 before this - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982 WP No. 110094 of 2025 Court seeking consideration of his representation by the revenue authorities. By order dated 17.09.2025, this Court directed the Assistant Director of Land Records (‘ADLR’ for short) to consider the representation and pass appropriate orders after issuing notice to all stakeholders. 2.3. Pursuant thereto, the ADLR issued the impugned notice dated 05.12.2025, calling upon the parties to appear in the survey proceedings in respect of the schedule property. 2.4. Aggrieved by initiation of survey proceedings, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition. 3. Contention of the petitioner: 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to conduct a survey when the civil rights relating to access and enjoyment of the land are sub judice before the Civil Court in O.S.No.174 of 2021. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982 WP No. 110094 of 2025 3.2. It is further submitted that the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.101680 of 2025 did not authorise initiation of survey proceedings, but merely directed the ADLR to consider the representation. 3.3. It is submitted that the impugned notice would prejudice the petitioner’s case before the Civil Court and amounts to parallel proceedings. 3.4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of G. Gowri v. Union of India and Others1 (G. Gowri) dated 06.01.2023, and another decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in the case of Bethanna @ Bethanna Iyer and Another v. Raji and Others2 (Bethanna), to contend that, a mere direction to 1 W.P.Nos.2058 and 2061 of 2023 disposed of on 10.07.2023 2 W.P.No.3160 of 2025 and CMP No.25708 of 2025 disposed of on 22.10.2025 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982 WP No. 110094 of 2025 consider an application for conducting a survey under the relevant Act is not maintainable and such directions do not advance the cause of justice, but instead lead to multiplicity of proceedings. 3.5. It is submitted that the writ court cannot issue such directions and that the parties must be relegated to the Civil Court to establish their rights, which admittedly is pending in the present case in O.S.No.741 of 2021. 4. Contention of respondent No.6: 4.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 submits that the petitioner had submitted an application pursuant to which the Tahsildar, Hukkeri, issued a letter dated 06.07.2022 (Annexure-R1) and despite issuance of said letter by the Tahsildar, no survey was conducted. The petitioner thereafter submitted a - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982 WP No. 110094 of 2025 subsequent representation on 11.05.2025 (Annexure-R2). Non-consideration of the said representation compelled respondent No.6 to approach this Court in the earlier writ petition, pursuant to which a direction was issued to the authority to consider the representation in light of the letter issued by the Tahsildar. 4.2. Learned counsel further submits that the ADLR has issued notice to all stakeholders in compliance with the earlier order passed by this Court and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. It is also contended that the order passed in W.P.No.101680 of 2025 has attained finality, as the same has not been challenged. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. A demarcation survey conducted by the revenue authorities by itself does not determine or extinguish - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982 WP No. 110094 of 2025 the title or civil rights of the parties. A careful reading of the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.101680 of 2025 makes it clear that the ADLR was directed to consider the representation of respondent No.6 after issuing notice to all stakeholders. The impugned notice has been issued pursuant thereto and after putting the petitioner on notice. 7. In the decisions relied upon by the petitioner in G. Gauri and Bethana, though it is held that the Writ Court cannot mechanically issue directions to conduct survey and that a mere direction to “consider” should not be treated a mandate to conduct a survey, the facts of the present case stand on a different footing. The material on record discloses that an earlier application had been submitted, pursuant to which the Tahsildar had issued a letter dated 06.07.2022 directing the ADLR to conduct a survey. On non- implementation of the said letter, a further - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982 WP No. 110094 of 2025 representation was made, which led to the earlier writ petition and the consequential direction to consider the representation. Therefore, the contention that no application existed or the authorities lacked jurisdiction cannot be accepted. 8. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the survey would prejudice the case pending before the Civil Court is misplaced. In the present case, survey confined to examining whether a pot kharab area of 20 guntas is included in Survey No.284 and does not amount to determining civil rights. Accordingly, no illegality is found in the issuance of the impugned notice by the ADLR. 9. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of merit. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982 WP No. 110094 of 2025 ii. It is needless to state that while conducting the survey, the Assistant Director of Land Records shall consider the objections, if any, filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law. iii. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Addl. Government Advocate that, though a direction was issued in the earlier petition, to conclude the survey within eight weeks, however, the survey could not be concluded within the stipulated time and further extension is sought. iv. Having regard to the nature of the exercise, an additional period of two months from today is granted to complete the survey proceedings. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10