Karnataka High Court
Mallappa S/O Basappa Avakkanavar vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16418
WP No. 105677 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 105677 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. MALLAPPA S/O BASAPPA AVAKKANAVAR,
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. WARD NO.7, NEAR GLPS SCHOOL,
THOT 1, GLBC CANAL ROAD, YARGATTI,
TQ. RABKHAVI BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587 312.
2. BASAPPA S/O GRIMALLAPPA PUJARI,
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. WARD NO.2, TOTAD SHALE 1,
YARGATTI, TQ. RABKHAVI BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587 312.
3. SUBHASH S/O BASAPPA AVAKKANAVAR,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed by
R/O. WARD NO.7, NEAR GLPS SCHOOL,
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.11.27 12:54:43
+0530
THOT 1, GLBC CANAL ROAD, YARGATTI,
TQ. RABKHAVI BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587 312.
4. ASHOK S/O BASAPPA AVAKKANAVAR,
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. WARD NO.1, TOTAD SHALE,
YARGATTI, TQ. RABKHAVI BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587 312.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16418
WP No. 105677 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. HANAMANT S/O NINGAPPA AVAKKANAVAR,
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADALMATTI, PO: HALINGALI,
TQ. JAMKHANDI, DIST. BAGALKOT-587 315.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT, SECTOR 61,
NAVA NAGAR, BAGALKOTE,
KARNATAKA-587 103.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
JAMKHANDI-SUB-DIVISION, JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587 301.
4. THE TAHASILDAR,
RABKAVI-BANAHATTI, TAHSILDAR OFFICE,
RABKAVI-BANAHATTI,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT-587 311.
5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
TERDAL CIRCLE,TERDAL,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587 315.
6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (LEGAL),
GODAVARI SUGAR, BIOREFINERIES LTD.,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16418
WP No. 105677 of 2025
HC-KAR
SAMEERWADI, TQ. RABKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587 316.
7. THE SECRETARY/TAHASILDAR,
TALUKA LAND GRANT COMMITTEE,
RABKAVI-BANAHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT-587 311.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R5 AND R7;
SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT QUASHING THE
ORDER DATED 04.07.2025 PASSED IN LND-CR-
13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20+22+23+24/2024-25 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE J AND ISSUE WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR DIRECTION DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 7 TO CONSIDER THE FORM NO.57
SL. Form No. Area RS ID Number ANNX
NO. 57 BY
1 Pt NO 1 3 AS 7/1 BHIM3981B8B05A213 "E"
2 Pt NO 2 2A 7/1 BHIM3981B8AFE76A1 "E1"
3 Pt NO 3 2A-2G 7/1 BHIM3981B8B228BFA "E2"
4 Pt NO 4 1Ae 7/1 BHIM3981B8B1D64BA "E3"
5 Pt NO 5 1A 61/3 BHIM3981B8D518AD "E4"
AND TO PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY FIXING
TIME LIMIT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16418
WP No. 105677 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order marked as Annexure-J dated 04.07.2025 passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner.
2. In terms of the impugned order, the Assistant Commissioner reviewed the order under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 19641.
3. Certain facts are not in dispute. The petitioners filed an application before the Tahsildar seeking grant of certain land on the premise that they were in unauthorised occupation of the property. The Tahsildar rejected the application without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners challenged that order before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant commissioner allowed the appeal and directed the Tahsildar to place the matter before the Land Grant Committee for consideration of the petitioners' application for regularisation. 1 For short, 'Act of 1964' -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16418 WP No. 105677 of 2025 HC-KAR
4. Subsequently, respondent No.6, the original owner of the property sought review of the said order. The review application was rejected; however, simultaneously, the order allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to the Tahsildar with a direction to place the matter before the Land Grant Committee was also recalled.
5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners are before this Court.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that claim of respondent No.6 is already adjudicated in terms of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, in Appeal No.203/1981. It is further submitted that said the order has attained finality.
7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6 does not dispute the fact that the order has attained finality; however, he would submit that the review application was maintainable before the Assistant Commissioner, as the earlier order had been passed without affording respondent No.6 an opportunity of hearing.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16418 WP No. 105677 of 2025 HC-KAR
8. Learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that the Assistant Commissioner has the power to review his own order under Section 25 of Act of 1964, which recognizes the inherent power of the Revenue Court to pass such orders as may be necessary in the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of the process of the Revenue Court.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, by way of reply, would submit that review is a statutory remedy and unless expressly conferred by statute, no power of review can be exercised. He places reliance on the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Nataraj K and Others Vs. State of Karnataka Rep. by its Secretary and Others2, wherein it has been held that Section 25 of the Act of 1964 does not confer the power of review.
10. It is to be noticed that Section 25 of Act of 1964, recognizes the power of the Revenue Court to pass such orders as may be necessary in the interest of justice or to prevent miscarriage of justice. Therefore, if an order is passed without issuing notice to a necessary party having a right over the 2 2024 SCC Online Kar 20740 -7- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16418 WP No. 105677 of 2025 HC-KAR property, then such an order may be recalled in exercise of powers under Section 25 of Act of 1964.
11. In the present case, although notice was not issued to respondent No.6, respondent No.6 has no subsisting right over the property, as its claim has already been negatived by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, and that order has attained finality. It is further submitted that the matter was carried up to the Apex Court, and the Apex Court also did not entertain the claim of respondent No.6. Though the particulars of the case numbers are not furnished, the fact is not disputed.
12. Under these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the impugned order to the extent of recalling earlier order remitting the matter to the Tahsildar with a direction to place the petitioners' application before the Land Grant Committee has to be set aside, and the order passed earlier (before recall) has to be restored.
13. Hence, the following:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16418 WP No. 105677 of 2025 HC-KAR ORDER
a) The writ petition is allowed.
b) The order dated 04.07.2025 passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner is quashed.
c) The Tahsildar-respondent No.4 shall place the petitioners' application before the Land Grant Committee or respondent No.7 shall consider the petitioners' application in accordance with law.
d) In the said proceeding, respondent No.6 is not a necessary party.
e) It is made clear that the Court has not expressed anything on the merits of the claim of the petitioners.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 9