Karnataka High Court
Adam Kunhi vs Deputy Commissioner on 10 July, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:25299
WP No. 22266 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO. 22266 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
ADAM KUNHI
S/O ISUBU BEARY,
AGED 61 YEARS,
R/AT BAYABE HOUSE,
KEDILA GRAMA AND POST,
BANTWAL TALUK D.K. - 574220
(PETITIONER IS NOT CLAIMING BENEFITS
CONFERRED TO SENIOR CITIZENS )
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by JUANITA 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
THEJESWINI
AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
KARNATAKA
MANGALURU D K - 575001
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE SUB DIVISION
MANGALURU D K - 575001
3. THASILDAR
BANTWAL TALUK
BANTWAL, D K DISTRICT-574219.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:25299
WP No. 22266 of 2024
HC-KAR
SRI UMMARE BEARY SINCE DECEASED
BY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
K ALIYAMMA SINCE DECEASED
BY RESPONDENTS NOS. 5 TO 13
4. K. IDDU KUNHI
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O LATE UMMARE BEARY,
5. ASEEYA
AGED 47 YEARS
D/O LATE UMMARE BEARY,
6. K ABDUL REHAMAN
AGED 45 YEARS
S/O LATE UMMARE BEARY,
7. K ABUUBACKER
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O LATE UMMARE BEARY,
8. K ABDUL HAMEED
AGED 40 YEARS
S/O LATE UMMARE BEARY,
9. K ABDUL RAZAK
AGED 38 YEARS
S/O LATE UMMARE BEARY,
10. K MAHAMMED HUSSAIN
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O LATE UMMARE BEARY,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:25299
WP No. 22266 of 2024
HC-KAR
11. K JAMEELA
AGED 34 YEARS
D/O LATE UMMARE BEARY,
12. MAIMUNNA
AGED 32 YEARS
D/O LATE UMMARE BEARY,
R5 TO R12 ARE ALL R/A KORYA HOUSE,
BALTHILA VILLAGE, POST BALTHILA
BANTWAL TALUK, D .K. DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER
SRI. ABOOBAKKER
S/O. MOIDU KUNHI,
BAYABLE HOUSE KEDILA VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUK, D K DISTRICT - 574220
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAVYA SHEKHAR., AGA FOR R1 TO R3
SRI. DIVAKARA K NIDVANNAYA., ADVOCATE
FOR R5, R8, R10 & R11 (VC)
R6, R7, R9, R12 & R13 ARE SERVED
V/O DT.25/04/2025 R5 TO R13 ARE LRS OF R4)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DTD. 16.07.2024 IN CASE NO. CDS.R.A.P 29/2021 PASSED BY
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALURU CERTIFIED COPY
OF WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:25299
WP No. 22266 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner herein is assailing
the order dated 16.07.2024 in case
No.CDS:R.A.P.29/2021 on the file of respondent No.1
(Annexure 'A') to the writ petition.
2. Heard Sri Ravishankar Shastry, learned Counsel for
the petitioner, Smt.Navya Shekhar, learned Additional
Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.1 to
3-State and Sri Divakara K.Nidvannaya, learned Counsel
appearing for respondents No.5, 8, 10 and 11.
3. Sri Ravishankar Shastry, learned Counsel appearing
for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the
judgment and decree dated 13.03.2007 in RFA
No.21/1999, wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of this
Court allowed the appeal preferred by the petitioner herein
wherein, the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.45/1993 dated 12.11.1998, has been set aside. In
NC: 2025:KHC:25299
HC-KAR
that view of the matter, the learned Counsel submitted
that the finding recorded by respondent No.1, that the
second suit in O.S.No.36/2018 cannot be considered for
the purpose of entering the name of the petitioner herein
in the revenue records. It is also argued by the learned
Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the order dated
08.08.1994 in W.P.No.12085/1994 (Annexure 'E') in the
earlier round of litigation, wherein, this Court, disposed of
the writ petition to await the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.45/1993, which ultimately resulted in the
judgment and decree in RFA No.21/1999 dated
13.03.2007. Accordingly, he sought for interference of
this Court.
4. Per contra, Sri Divakara K.Nidvannaya, learned
Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents
submitted that though the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.45/1993 has reached finality in RFA No.21/1999
before the Hon'ble Division Bench, however, this Court has
reserved liberty to the respondent therein-plaintiff to
NC: 2025:KHC:25299
HC-KAR
initiate such other suit or proceedings to enforce his right
and accordingly, O.S.No.36/2018 is filed before the
competent Civil Court and same is pending consideration.
Accordingly, learned Counsel sought for dismissal of the
writ petition.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate sought to
justify the impugned order passed by respondent No.1.
6. In the light of the submissions made by the
learned Counsel appearing for the parties and on careful
examination of the order dated 08.08.1994 in
W.P.No.12085/1994 (Annexure 'E'), this Court at
paragraph No.5 has held that the parties have to await the
judgment and decree that may be passed in
O.S.No.45/1993 insofar as the rights of the parties are
concerned.
7. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.45/1993 was
challenged before this Court in RFA No.21/1999 and this
Court by judgment and decree dated 13.03.2007 at
Annexure 'F', allowed the appeal preferred by the
NC: 2025:KHC:25299
HC-KAR
petitioner herein and accordingly, set aside the judgment
and decree in O.S.No.45/1993 dated 12.11.1998. Though
this Court has reserved liberty to the plaintiff therein to
institute such other suit, however, the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.45/1993 has reached finality.
8. In that view of the matter, I find force in the
submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner
and the finding recorded by respondent No.1 that to await
the judgment and decree in O.S.No.36/2018, is incorrect
and therefore, the order dated 16.07.2024 passed by
respondent No.1 at Annexure 'A' is hereby set aside.
9. Accordingly, the order dated 11.06.2020 at
Annexure 'B' passed by respondent No.2-Assistant
Commissioner, Mangaluru Sub-Division, Mangaluru, is
hereby confirmed. It is needless to say that the name of
the petitioner is being continued in the revenue records
and the same has to be continued until the rights of the
parties are crystallised in O.S.No.36/2018.
NC: 2025:KHC:25299
HC-KAR
10. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
has produced the representation dated 12.11.2024, by
way of a memo dated 10.07.2025, stating that the GPA
holder of respondents No.4 to 13 herein has submitted an
application to respondent No.1 stating that the present
writ petition has been rejected on 28.10.2024. The said
conduct of the GPA holder of respondents No.4 to 13
herein is deprecated and therefore, the said submission
made by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner
has been considered in the light of the observations made
herein.
11. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Sd/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
JT/-
CT: JL
