Karnataka High Court
M. Shivappa S/O. Late M Hanumappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 10 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3749
WP No. 103297 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 103297 OF 2018 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
M. SHIVAPPA S/O. LATE M.HANUMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC:RETIRED,
R/O. NEAR REMAND HOME,
DEVI NAGAR, BALLARI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY.B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
BALLARI,
BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
Digitally signed
by
PREMCHANDRA 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
MR MOKA HUBLI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF TALUK: BALLARI,
KARNATAKA
DISTRICT: BALLARI.
5. M.KANDEGOUDA @ MULEMANE KANDEGOUDA
S/O. MALLAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.,
5A. M.GADILING S/O. LATE M.KANDEGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENAKALLU VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT:BALLARI.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3749
WP No. 103297 of 2018
HC-KAR
5B. SMT. M. RUKMANEMMA W/O. LATE M.KANDEGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENAKALLU VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: BALLARI.
6. M.SHANTI S/O. LATE M.GADILINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENAKAL VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT BALLARI.
7. M.RAMALINGAPPA S/O. LATE M.GADILINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENAKAL VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT:BALLARI.
8. M.NAGARAJ S/O. LATE M. GADILINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENAKAL VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT:BALLARI.
9. M.SIDDARAMAPPA S/O. LATE M.BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENAKAL VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT:BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MALA.B.BHUTE, AGA FOR R1-R4;
NOTICE TO R6-R8 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE TO R5A-R5B, R9 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3749
WP No. 103297 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Mala B.Bhute., Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 have appeared in person.
2. The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing of the order dated 22.11.2017 passed by the 1st respondent which is produced at Annexure-G in Appeal No.19/2013-14;
b. Issue such other writ or order as direction as deemed fit in the interest of justice.
3. It is stated that the fifth respondent opposed the entry of the petitioner's name in respect of only one property, i.e., RS No.78B measuring to an extent of 50 cents situated at Benakal Village, Taluk and District Ballari. Hence, the case was registered as Disputed Case No.87/2007-2008. The Tahsildar, by an order dated 05.08.2009, rejected the petition on the ground that the partition as contended is forged and, hence, the petitioner's name cannot be entered. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in Revenue Appeal No.319/2010-11. The Assistant Commissioner, vide order dated 04.12.2012, allowed the appeal -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3749 WP No. 103297 of 2018 HC-KAR by setting aside the mutation and entered the name of the petitioner. The fifth respondent challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner by filing a Revision Petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari, in Revision Petition No.19/2013-
14. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 22.11.2017, allowed the Revision Petition. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has filed this captioned writ petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition.
4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contetnions.
Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, counsel for the petitioner, in presenting his arguments, drew the Court's attention to the order sheet of the proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner to contend that the case was called out on 26.07.2017 and the appellant was absent. A submission was made to the Deputy Commissioner that the appellant was not appearing in the case and was protracting the proceedings, thereby causing undue hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, it was prayed that necessary orders be passed. He argued by saying that the Deputy Commissioner, at best, could have -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3749 WP No. 103297 of 2018 HC-KAR dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution; however, he proceeded with the matter and allowed the Revision Petition.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.
6. The true copy of the order sheet is furnished along with the Writ Petition. As is evident from the same, on 26.07.2017, the fifth respondent was absent. As the fifth respondent having failed to appear, the petitioner requested the Deputy Commissioner to take note of his absence and to pass appropriate orders. Despite the petitioner's submission, the Deputy Commissioner proceeded with the matter and allowed the Revision Petition. It is my considered view that in the absence of the fifth respondent (petitioner before the Deputy Commissioner), the Deputy Commissioner was limited to dismissing the revision for non prosecution, rendering the order on merits legally unsustainable.
7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The impugned intimation letters dated 22.11.2017 issued by respondent No.1 vide Annexure - G is quashed. Matter is remitted back to the -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:3749 WP No. 103297 of 2018 HC-KAR Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M) JUDGE AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40