Karnataka High Court
Hemanna Since Dead By Lrs vs State Of Karnataka on 31 January, 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.56087 OF 2016 (LR-RES)
BETWEEN:
HEMANNA
SINCE DEAD BY LRS.
1 AKKAYAMMA
SINCE DEAD BY HER LRS
2 SRI. DANEGOWDA
S/O LATE HEMANNA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
3 SRI. MUNIVENKATEGOWDA
S/O LATE HEMANNA
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
4 SRI. GOPALAGOWDA @ PRAKASH
S/O LATE HEMANNA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
SATHNUR VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
KARNATAKA.
2
(PETITIONER NOS.2 TO 4 ARE LRS OF PETITIONER NO.1
AS PER ORDER DATED 09.07.2024)
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE- 560 001.
2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL
DEVANAHALLI TALUK
DEVANAHALLI - 562 110.
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY.
3. SRI. MUNIYAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ DOMMANNA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
4. SMT. PAPAMMA
W/O LATE NARAYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
5. SMT. MOUNA
D/O LATE NARYANASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
6. SRI. AVALAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA @ DOMANNA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
7. SMT. ANASUYAMMA
W/O KEMPANNA
3
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
8. KUM. ASHWINI
D/O LATE KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS
9. MR. ARUN
S/O LATE KEMPANNA
AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER
SMT. ANASUYAMMA
RESPONDENTS NO. 3 TO 9 ARE
RESIDING AT
SATHNUR VILLAGE,
JALA HOBLI,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
KARNATAKA - 560 015.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI D.P. SHIVAPRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER OF THE LAND TRIBUNAL RESPONDENT NO.2 IN LRF
NO.1/1979/80 DATED 13.07.1982 IN GRANTING OCCUPANCY
RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF DOMMANNA @ MUNISWAMAPPA IN
RESPECT OF LAND IN SURVEY NO.4 MEASURING 1 ACRE AND 2
ACRE 8 GUNTA IN SURVEY NO.6 OF SATHANUR VILLAGE, JALA
HOBLI, VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND DISMISS THE FORM NO.7 FILED
BY LATE DOMMANNA @ MUNISWAMAPPA.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 29.01.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
4
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
CAV ORDER
The petitioners in the captioned petition are assailing
the order of the respondent No.2/Land Tribunal dated
13.07.1982 conferring occupancy rights to the father of
respondent No.3-Domanna @ Muniyappa in respect of
petition lands bearing Sy.No.4 measuring 1 acre and
Sy.No.6 measuring 2 acres 8 guntas in Sathanur Village,
Jala Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk.
2. The facts leading to the case are as under:
It is not in dispute that these lands were originally
owned by Muniswamappa who is the grandfather of
respondent No.3. The said Muniswamappa borrowed loan
from Primary Land Development Bank, Devanahalli by
mortgaging the lands on 13.08.1965. In view of default by
the borrower, these lands were subjected to public auction
and the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of
5
petitioner Nos.2 to 4 purchased the lands in auction and the
sale certificate came to be issued on 30.06.1978.
In the meanwhile, the father of respondent No.3-
Domanna @ Muniyappa filed Form No.7 claiming occupancy
rights in respect of petition lands. The Land Tribunal after
enquiry vide order dated 13.07.1982 allowed the
application filed in Form No.7 and registered Domanna @
Muniyappa as occupant of the land. The said order passed
by the Tribunal was challenged by the husband of petitioner
No.1 in W.P.No.28672/1982. This Court allowed the
petition vide order dated 17.09.1984 thereby quashed the
order of the Land Tribunal and matter stood remitted for
fresh consideration.
The respondent No.3's father challenged the order
passed in W.P.No.28672/1982 in W.A.No.667/1985 and the
Division Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the order
passed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated
6
16.09.1987. In the light of amendment and establishment
of Land Reforms Appellate Authority, matter stood remitted
to the Appellate Authority.
Subsequently, in view of abolition of Appellate
Authority, the husband of petitioner No.1 filed a CP to treat
the appeal as a writ petition in W.P.No.25394/1992. The
said writ petition filed in W.P.No.25394/1992 was dismissed
for non-prosecution vide order dated 12.07.1993. The
husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to
4 filed application seeking recalling of the order dated
12.07.1993. The same was numbered as
C.P.No.1281/2001. This Court however rejected the
petition vide order dated 07.12.2001 which was sought to
be reviewed by the husband of petitioner No.1 namely
Hemanna by filing a review petition in R.P.No.41/2002. The
review petition was also rejected vide order dated
26.08.2004.
7
Simultaneously, in view of occupancy rights granted in
favour of father of respondent No.3, the mutation
proceedings also came to be initiated and the husband of
petitioner No.1 namely Hemanna probably questioning the
mutation granted to respondent No.3's father based on
Land Tribunal order questioned the order of the Tahsildar
by filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in
R.A.No.50/2004-05. The Assistant Commissioner vide
order dated 07.09.2004 allowed the appeal and set aside
the order of the Tahsildar. This order was challenged by
the present respondent No.3 before the Deputy
Commissioner who dismissed the revision petition vide
order dated 22.06.2007. The present respondent No.3 and
other legal heirs of the original applicant/tenant filed writ
petition in W.P.No.10750/2007. This Court vide order
dated 02.11.2012 set aside the orders of the Assistant
Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and restored the
order of the Tahsildar. The original petitioner Hemanna
8
challenged the order passed in W.P.No.10750/2007 in
W.A.No.8592/2012. This appeal was withdrawn with liberty
to file a civil suit. Recording the prayer sought in the
memo, the Division Bench permitted the husband of
petitioner No.1 to withdraw the appeal vide order dated
25.03.2014.
The present petitioners filed review petition in 2016
seeking review of the order passed in W.A.No.8592/2012.
However, this review petition was also rejected by the
Division Bench vide order dated 14.07.2016. Pursuant to
dismissal of the review petition in R.P.No.1263/2014, now
present writ petition is filed assailing the order of the
respondent No.2/Land Tribunal dated 13.07.1982.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
reiterating the grounds in the writ petition has ardently
contended that dismissal of writ petition filed in
W.P.No.25394/1992 for non-prosecution which was filed
9
primarily questioning the order of the Land Tribunal
granting occupancy rights will not bar the petitioners in
maintaining the present writ petition. Citing the reported
judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench in The
Managing Director, The Cauveri Neeravari Nigam
Limited vs. Sri Manjegowda1, learned counsel has tried
to persuade this Court that earlier dismissal of writ petition
for non-prosecution will not operate as res judicata and the
present writ petition is maintainable and this Court is
vested with jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the
order granting occupancy rights on private respondents.
Petitioners counsel arguing on the same line has further
placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Daryao and Others vs. State of
U.P.2. While placing reliance on the judgment, he would
contend that rule of res judicata is not merely a technical
rule but it is based on public policy and therefore, citizens
1
2008 (2) KCCR 1085
2
AIR 1961 SC 1457
10
are ordinarily entitled to appropriate relief when writ
jurisdiction is invoked. He has further placed reliance on
the latest judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Beerbal Singh (Dead) Through legal
representatives vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Others3.
4. Learned counsel would further point out that
dismissal of the writ petition for default and for non-
prosecution will not attract principles governing Res-
Judicata.He has cited Hon'ble Apex Court judgment in the
case of Raj Kishore Pandey vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others4. Citing this judgment, he would contend that
Court should be lenient while considering restoration of the
petition filed for default. He has also cited the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others vs. Maharashtra
3
(2018) 13 SCC 675
4
(2009) 2 SCC 692
11
Industrial Development Corporation and Others5.
Citing this judgment, he would point out that even if right
to property seizes to be a fundamental right, however, the
right to property is a statutory right as amended under
Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Citing the law laid
down by the coordinate Bench in the case of Sri Govind
Krishanarao Deshpande vs. The Land Tribunal and
Others6, learned counsel for the petitioners has
vehemently argued and contended that discretion needs to
be exercised if it is found that it is unreasonable in diffusing
justice.
5. Citing these judgments, he argues that the
father of Respondent No.3 filed Form No.7 against his own
father solely to circumvent the auction sale and the
petitioners' purchase in the auction, thereby claiming
occupancy rights. Therefore, he would contend that this is a
clear case of fraud. Citing the judgment of the Hon'ble
5
(2013) 1 SCC 353
6
ILR 2006 Kar 1872
12
Apex Court in the case of Janak Raj vs. Gurdial Singh7,
he would contend that once sale certificate is confirmed, the
subsequent challenge to award and even if the award is set
aside that will not invalidate the sale certificate confirmed
by the competent authority.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent Nos.3 to 9 would point out that the order of the
Land Tribunal conferring occupancy rights is dated
13.07.1982 and the present writ petition is filed in 2016.
Therefore, she would request this Court to dismiss the writ
petition only on the ground of delay and laches. While
countering petitioners claim that Form No.7 filed by father
of respondent No.3 was set up by the defaulter who had
failed to repay the loan, she would point out that this
contention is not sustainable. Referring to registered
partition deed, she would point out that father of
respondent No.3, the son of original defaulter, separated
7
AIR 1967 SC 608
13
from his father under registered partition deed dated
07.09.1965 and therefore, there is no bar/impediment to
maintain Form No.7 against his separated father.
7. Referring to the order sheet, she would point out
that though one D.V.Padmanabhaiah is shown to be an
Advocate for petitioner, infact, he was an Advocate
appearing for the respondent. Further referring to the
records, she would point out that petitioners had made an
attempt to recall the order dated 12.07.1993 which was
dismissed for non-prosecution. This petition which was filed
in C.P.No.1281/2001 seeking recall of the dismissal order in
W.P.No.25394/1992 was also dismissed. Application to
recall this order was also rejected on 07.12.2001. Review
petition filed in R.P.No.41/2002 was dismissed on
26.08.2004.
8. She would further point that the present writ
petition filed after lapse of 34 years cannot be a
14
entertained since petitioners were found litigating
simultaneously while assailing the mutation orders based on
a Land Tribunal order conferring occupancy rights.
Referring to these significant details, she has placed
reliance on the following judgments:
1) Kharaiti Lal vs. Raminder Kaur and Others - (2000) 3
SCC 664;
2) U.Nilan vs. Kannayyan (Dead) Through Lrs. - (1999) 8
SCC 511;
3) Challamane Huchha Gowda vs. M.R.Tirumala and
Another - (2004) 1 SCC 453;
4) Sri Maruthi Devasthan Modag vs. The Land Tribunal,
Belgaum - W.P.No.37541/1997;
5) State of U.P. and Another vs. Labh Chand - (1993) 2
SCC 495;
6) Dabulu Shedthi vs. State of Karnataka and Others -
2005 SCC Online Kar 181;
7) D.Sangya Naik vs. Department of Telecom by its Head
of the Dept., New Delhi and Others - ILR 2005 Kar 1874;
15
8) Sri S.Gautam Raj vs. Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
Palike - ILR 2016 Kar 2804;
9) Papanna vs. State of Karnataka and Others - ILR 001
Kar 580;
10) Gopal Rao vs. Land Reforms Tribunal Basavakalyan &
Anr. - 1978 SCC Online 285;
11) Basavaraj M. vs. State of Karnataka - W.P.No.26693 of
1981.
9. While countering petitioners contention and
judgments cited, she as a counter has placed reliance on
the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Labh Chand8. Citing
this judgment, she would contend that second writ petition
after dismissal in limine ,second writ is not maintainable.
She has also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by
the Division Bench in the case of Dabulu Shedthi vs.
State of Karnataka and Others9. Referring to the
principles laid down by the Division Bench, she would point
8
(1993) 2 SCC 495
9
2005 SCC Online Kar 181
16
out that if coordinate Bench did not find the explanation
plausible, while dealing with civil petition, another Bench
cannot review that the explanation is satisfactory. She has
also placed reliance on the judgment rendered by the
coordinate Bench rendered in the case of D.Sangya Naik
vs. Department of Telecom by its Head of the Dept.,
New Delhi and Others10.
10. While countering petitioners claim on
maintainability of Form No.7, reliance is placed on the
judgment rendered by the coordinate Bench in the case of
Basavaraj M. vs. State of Karnataka and Others11 to
demonstrate that junior member of Joint Hindu family more
particularly son can maintain application for registration of
occupancy rights during lifetime of father.
11. Heard learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1
10
ILR 2005 Kar 1874
11
W.P.No.26693 of 1981
17
and 2 and learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3
to 9.
12. Based on the contentions advanced by the
counsel on record, following points arises for consideration:
1) Whether the present writ petition is
liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches?
2) Whether petitioner can maintain second
writ petition in view of dismissal of review
petition filed in R.P.No.41/2002 which is
preceded by dismissal of civil petition filed in
C.P.No.1281/2001?
Finding on Point No.1:
13. In the case on hand, it is not that petitioners
were not aware of the dismissal of the civil petition filed in
C.P.No.1281/2001 and also dismissal of the writ petition by
Division Bench in W.P.No.25394/1992 for default. The writ
petition filed in W.P.No.25394/1992 assailing the order of
18
the Land Tribunal dated 13.07.1982 conferring occupancy
rights on private respondents was dismissed for non-
prosecution on 12.07.1993. Assailing the dismissal for non-
prosecution, a civil petition was filed in C.P.No.1281/2001.
The Division Bench dismissed the civil petition vide order
dated 07.12.2001. This Court deems it fit to extract
relevant portion of the order passed in C.P.No.1281/2001,
which reads as under:
"3. Generally, this Court is lenient in condoning
the delay if reasonable and sufficient cause is made
out. In the instant case, we are not satisfied with
the explanation given by the petitioner for not
appearing before court on 12.7.93 and for non-
compliance. On consideration, we find no ground to
recall the order. However, the parties are free to
take action in accordance with law."
14. A Review petition was filed before the Division
Bench to recall the dismissal of writ petition for non-
prosecution dated 12.07.1993. This review petition is also
19
dismissed on 26.08.2004. The relevant portion of review
petition is extracted as under:
"5. This Court considered the matter in detail
while passing the order in C.P.No.1281/2001 and
found that there was no good ground to recall the
order dated 12-7-1993 passed in the writ petition.
Under the circumstances, we find no reason to
review the order passed in C.P.No.1281/2001. This
review petition is dismissed."
15. In the intervening period, the petitioners have
been persistently engaged in litigation against the private
respondents, primarily contesting their title based on the
sale certificate issued by the competent authority.
Additionally, the petitioners have been continuously
involved in mutation proceedings since 2003. The case
records indicate that, pursuant to the order of the Land
Tribunal, the legal heirs of Domanna submitted an
application before the Tahsildar seeking a change in the
katha. This application was considered and subsequently
20
allowed, resulting in the names of Domanna's legal heirs--
who are the successors of the original applicant/tenant--
being officially mutated in the revenue records on
15.11.2003.
16. However, this order was challenged by
Hemanna, the ancestor of the petitioners, before the
Assistant Commissioner. Upon reviewing the matter, the
Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal, thereby setting
aside the order passed by the Tahsildar. Aggrieved by this
decision, the legal heirs of Domanna, including Respondent
No.3 and others, preferred an appeal questioning the
Assistant Commissioner's order. Simultaneously, Hemanna
also filed an application seeking the restoration of the
auction purchaser's title. After considering both contentions,
the Deputy Commissioner, in an order dated 22.06.2007,
dismissed the revision petition filed by the legal heirs of the
original applicant/tenant and instead allowed the application
21
filed by Hemanna, effectively reinstating the auction
purchaser's rights.
17. Dissatisfied with the Deputy Commissioner's
decision, Respondent Nos.3 to 9 approached this Court by
filing W.P.No.10750/2007, challenging the said order. Upon
consideration, this Court allowed the writ petition through
an order dated 02.11.2012, setting aside the orders passed
by both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner and thereby restoring the order of the
Tahsildar. In response, Hemanna, the ancestor of the
petitioners, assailed this judgment by filing
W.A.No.8592/2012. However, during the proceedings, the
said writ appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on
25.03.2014.
18. Despite withdrawing the writ appeal, the
petitioners made an unusual move by subsequently filing a
review petition in R.P.No.1263/2014, seeking a recall of the
22
earlier order. However, this review petition was thoroughly
examined and ultimately dismissed on 14.07.2016. Thus,
having faced an adverse outcome in the mutation
proceedings at every stage, the petitioners' ancestor, after
exhausting all available remedies, eventually filed the
present writ petition in W.P.No.56087/2016.
19. Another significant development pertains to
W.P.No.25394/1992, which was originally filed to challenge
the Land Tribunal's order dated 13.07.1982. This writ
petition, however, was dismissed for non-prosecution on
12.07.1993. Interestingly, while the petitioners remained
highly active in contesting mutation proceedings and
asserting their title based on the sale certificate, they
deliberately chose not to challenge the dismissal of this writ
petition.
20. Furthermore, the matter did not end there. The
Division Bench not only dismissed the writ petition for non-
23
prosecution, but subsequent attempts to revive the case
also failed. A civil petition was filed in C.P.No.1281/2001,
followed by a review petition in R.P.No.41/2002, both of
which were dismissed. If the petitioners wished to challenge
these adverse orders, they ought to have pursued
appropriate legal remedies in a timely manner, as
prescribed by law. However, having consciously refrained
from challenging these dismissals, their present claims
must be viewed in light of their previous inaction.
21. The petitioners, despite having full knowledge of
the proceedings arising out of the mutation dispute, failed
to act within the prescribed time and have thus forfeited
their rights due to inaction. This is a clear case of waiver. A
Coordinate Bench of this Court, while relying on the
judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Balwant Singh v.
Jagdish Singh, has emphasized that neither a liberal
approach nor a justice-oriented perspective can be used to
override the substantive law of limitation. The Hon'ble Apex
24
Court, in the aforesaid judgment, categorically held that the
law of limitation, being a substantive provision, has
definitive consequences on the rights and obligations of
litigating parties. Once a party gains a valuable right due to
the deliberate inaction and laxity of the opposing party,
such inordinate delay especially when arising from
negligence cannot be condoned. The Hon'ble Apex Court
has held that discretion vested with the Court while
considering delay application under section 5 of the
Limitation Act has to be exercised in a systematic manner
informed by reasons.
22. In the light of discussion made supra, this Court
is of the view that this writ petition is liable to be dismissed
on the ground of laches. Accordingly, point No.1 is
answered in the affirmative.
25
Finding on point No.2:
23. Regarding the maintainability of the present
petition, the petitioners contend that the dismissal of the
writ petition in W.P.No.25394/1992 vide order dated
12.07.1993 does not preclude them from challenging the
issue afresh through a separate writ petition. However, this
argument cannot be accepted. The case records clearly
establish that the petitioners did attempt to
revive W.P.No.25394/1992 by filing a civil petition
in C.P.No.1281/2001. It is pertinent to note that this civil
petition was filed only in 2001, whereas the Division Bench
had dismissed W.P.No.25394/1992 for non-prosecution as
early as 12.07.1993. Thus, there was an inordinate delay of
eight years before the petitioners made an attempt to
resuscitate the original writ petition by
filing C.P.No.1281/2001.
26
24. Upon consideration, the Division Bench was not
inclined to recall the earlier dismissal order, and
consequently, C.P.No.1281/2001 was dismissed in 2001.
This demonstrates that the petitioners, despite having
ample opportunity, failed to take appropriate legal steps in
a timely manner. Their belated attempt to revive the
matter, after nearly a decade, was rightly rejected by the
Division Bench.
25. Following the dismissal of their civil petition, the
original petitioner, Hemanna, made a final attempt by filing
a review petition in R.P.No.41/2002, seeking a
reconsideration of the orders passed
in W.P.No.25394/1992 and C.P.No.1281/2001. However,
the Division Bench once again declined to interfere, firmly
refusing to recall any of the previous orders. This resulted
in the dismissal of the review petition as well.
27
26. From the sequence of events, it is evident that
the petitioners did not maintain a fresh writ petition
independently; rather, they systematically pursued multiple
legal avenues to challenge the dismissal of their original
writ petition for non-prosecution. First, they
filed C.P.No.1281/2001, which was dismissed. Then, they
filed R.P.No.41/2002, which also met the same fate. If the
petitioners were genuinely aggrieved by these dismissals,
they ought to have pursued further legal remedies in the
manner prescribed by law at the appropriate time. Instead,
having suffered adverse orders at multiple stages, they now
seek to bypass the legal consequences of their own inaction
by relying on certain judicial precedents. However, the
judgments cited by the petitioners do not apply to the
present case, as their situation is distinct and governed by
established principles of finality in litigation.
28
27. On the other hand, the judgments relied upon by
the learned counsel for Respondent Nos.3 to 9 are directly
applicable to the present case. The petitioners, having
repeatedly failed to secure the restoration
of W.P.No.25394/1992, remained inactive for nearly twelve
years before filing the present writ petition. Additionally,
they have already suffered multiple adverse orders in the
mutation proceedings. It is significant to note that the
present writ petition is directed against the Land Tribunal's
order passed in 1982 an order that was left unchallenged
for decades.
28. The petitioners cannot circumvent the legal
consequences of the decisions rendered by the Division
Bench in W.P.No.25394/1992, C.P.No.1281/2001,
and R.P.No.41/2002. These orders have attained finality
and serve as a clear legal bar against the maintainability of
the present writ petition. The principle of res judicata and
the doctrine of finality in litigation apply squarely to this
29
case, estopping the petitioners from reopening settled
issues through fresh proceedings.
29. The present writ petition, W.P.No.56087/2016,
has been filed by the petitioners only after suffering
repeated setbacks in the mutation proceedings, culminating
in the dismissal of R.P.No.1263/2014 on 14.07.2016. The
review petition was an attempt to challenge the earlier
adverse orders, including the decision of this Court
in W.P.No.10750/2007, which had set aside the orders of
the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner
while restoring the Tahsildar's order. Despite these
repeated efforts, the petitioners' claims were consistently
rejected, and their review petition was thoroughly examined
and dismissed. It is evident that the petitioners, having
exhausted all available remedies in the mutation
proceedings, have now filed the present writ petition as a
last-ditch attempt to reopen settled issues, which were
conclusively adjudicated against them.
30
30. Accordingly, this Court finds that the petitioners
are not entitled to maintain the present writ petition, and
point No.2 is answered in the negative.
31. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to
pass the following:
ORDER
Writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
