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.
For short, 'Act of 1964'
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16418
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.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16418
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
2024 SCC Online Kar 20740
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16418
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:
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16418
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
