Karnataka High Court

Sri Shivappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 4 November, 2025

Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar

Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar

                                                 -1-
                                                            NC: 2025:KHC:44327
                                                         WP No. 11068 of 2020


                      HC-KAR




                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                           DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

                                               BEFORE

                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                           WRIT PETITION NO. 11068 OF 2020 (KLR-RES)


                      BETWEEN:

                            SRI SHIVAPPA
                            DEAD BY HIS LR'S

                      1.    SMT. LINGAMMA
                            W/O LATE SHIVAPPA
                            AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
                            R/O KEMPANADODDERI
                            GOLLARAHATTI, KORA HOBLI
                            TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572138.

                      2.    SRI. PURUSHOTHAMA.S
                            W/O LATE SHIVAPPA
Digitally signed by         AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
NANJUNDACHARI               R/O NANDAGOKULA NILAYA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                    OORUKERE
KARNATAKA                   TUMKUR TALUK AND DISTRICT-572106.

                      3.    SMT. VANAJAKSHI.S
                            W/O S. SHIVANNA
                            D/O LATE SHIVAPPA
                            AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
                            VARALAKSHMI NILAYA
                            NEAR YNDS HOUSE
                            BEHIND GOKUL RICE MILL
                            YALLAPURA, ARAKERE
                            TUMKUR-572106.
                                -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC:44327
                                      WP No. 11068 of 2020


HC-KAR




4.   SRI. KANTHARAJU.S
     S/O LATE SHIVAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
     K G HATTY, KORA HOBLI
     KEMPANADODDERI
     TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572138

5.   BHAGYA S.
     D/O LATE SHIVAPPA
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
     KAIG, TOWNSHIP
     MALLAPUR
     UTTARA KANNADA-581400.
                                             ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. K R LINGARAJU., ADVOCATE)


AND:
1.       THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
         TUMKUR
         TUMKUR DISTRICT-572101.

2.       SRI ERAKALAIAH
         S/O ERAIAH
         AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS

3.       SRI ERAMUNIYAPPA
         S/O ERAIAH
         AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS

4.       SRI CHIKKIRAIAH
         S/O ERAIAH
         AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS

5.       SRI DODDARAMAIAH
         SINCE DEAD REP BY HIS LR'S

5(a). SMT. JAYAMMA
      W/O EARANNA @ DAPPIRANNA
      D/O LATE DODDARAMAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
                                -3-
                                         NC: 2025:KHC:44327
                                       WP No. 11068 of 2020


HC-KAR




         R/O KEMPANADODDERI
         GOLLARAHATTI
         TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572138.

5(b). SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH
      S/O LATE DODDARAMAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
      R/O KEMPANADODDERI
      GOLLARAHATTI
      TUMKUR TALUK & DISTRICT-572138.

5(c). SMT. YASHODHAMMA
      W/O NATARAJU
      D/O LATE DODDARAMAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
      R/O KENCHAIAHNAPALYA
      GOLLARAHATTY, BELADHARA(POST)
      KORA(HOBLI), TUMKUR-572106.

6.       SRI CHIKKARAMAIAH
         S/O ERAIAH
         AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

7.       SRI DURGAIAH
         S/O ERAIAH
         AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

         RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4, 6 & 7
         ARE R/O KEMPANADODDERI,
         KORA HOBLI,
         TUMKUR TALUK-572138.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH.K., HCGP FOR R1
   SRI. K.N. CHIKKANNA.K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R2
   SMT.BHAVANA.N., ADVOCATE FOR SMT. SRUTI CHAGENTI.,
   ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4, R6 & R7
   R5(A) TO R5(C) ARE SERVED
   SRI. PRASHANTH U.T., ADVCOATE FOR
   IMPLEADING APPLICANTS)
                            -4-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC:44327
                                         WP No. 11068 of 2020


HC-KAR




     THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE JUDGMENT/
ORDER IN APPEAL NO.429/201 (CH-1) DATED 07.07.2020
PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT
BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-A THEREBY CONFIRMING THE
ORDER OF R-1 DATED 06.03.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-L AND
DIRECT THE JURSIDICTIONAL MAGISTRATE TO INITIATE THE
CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE R-2 TO 7 FOR
OBTAINING THE GENEALOGY TREE VIDE ANNEXURE-P, P1, P2
AND P3 BY FURNISHING FALSE INFORMATION TO THE
GOVERNMENT AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

                      ORAL ORDER

This petition by the second respondent in Appeal

No.429/2015 is directed against the impugned order dated

7th July, 2020 passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal,

Bangalore (for short "KAT"), whereby the said appeal filed

by respondents No.2 to 7/appellants was allowed by the

KAT which set aside the order dated 06.03.2015 passed by

the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner and remitted

the matter back to the first respondent-Deputy

Commissioner for reconsideration afresh, in accordance

NC: 2025:KHC:44327

HC-KAR

with law, after giving sufficient and reasonable opportunity

to respondents No.2 to 7.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

HCGP for respondent No.1, learned counsel for

respondents No.2 to 7 and learned counsel for the

impleading applicants. Perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that

on 06.03.2015, the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner

restored the katha/phada in favour of the petitioners

herein in relation to the subject lands bearing Sy.No.16

measuring 24.16 acres (excluding kharab of 3.27 Acres)

and Sy.No.17 measuring 7.04 Acres (excluding kharab of

0.14 Acres) situated at Nagenahalli village, which were

their ancestral joint family properties. Aggrieved by the

said order dated 06.03.2015 passed by the first

respondent-Deputy Commissioner, respondents No.2 to 7

approached the KAT vide aforesaid Rev.Appeal

No.429/2015. In the said appeal, respondents No.2 to 7

NC: 2025:KHC:44327

HC-KAR

specifically contended that the said order dated

06.03.2015 was passed by the first respondent-Deputy

Commissioner in violation of principles of natural justice

and without providing any opportunity to respondents

No.2 to 7/appellants before passing the impugned order.

4. The said appeal having been opposed by the

petitioner herein, KAT proceeded to pass the impugned

order allowing the appeal and setting aside the order of

the Deputy Commissioner and remitting the matter back

to the first respondent/Deputy Commissioner for

reconsideration afresh on the ground that sufficient and

reasonable opportunity had not been provided to

respondents No.2 to 7.

5. While passing the aforesaid order, the KAT has held

as under:

"6. Point No.1: The primary ground on which the Appellants have challenged the impugned order is that the 1st Respondent, without giving any notice, without giving an

NC: 2025:KHC:44327

HC-KAR

opportunity of being heard and contrary to the principles of natural justice has passed the impugned order. If this ground made out by the Appellant is accepted, then the question of considering the matter on merits does not arise. Therefore, first of all it is necessary to find out that there is any force in the said ground raised by the Appellants.

7. From the impugned order, it appears that the 2nd Respondent herein claiming to be the legal heir of deceased Chikka S/o. Karedar, had filed his representation dated 08.11.2012 with a prayer to restore the Khatha of the lands in question in his favour as per the provisions of Rule-119(2) of the Rules. Further, it is not in dispute that the 1st Appellant claiming to be the legal heir of Junjamma, the original owner of the lands in question, had also filed his application for restoration of the Khatha of the said lands in his favour and even he had filed his objections, opposing the claim of the 2nd Respondent herein.

8. The 1st Respondent after referring the applications of the Appellant No.1, Respondent No.2, considering the reports of the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner, orders of the Hon'ble

NC: 2025:KHC:44327

HC-KAR

High Court, Land Acquisition Notification issued by the KIADB, opinion of legal advisor etc., passed the impugned order in favour of the 2nd Respondent herein, restoring the Khatha of the lands in question in favour of Chikka S/o.Karedar, however observed that the said order shall be subject to the final decision of the Civil Court in O.S.No.1090/2011.

9. Nowhere, in the impugned order or in the lower court records we find any material to show that the 1st Respondent, before passing of the impugned order had given notice to the Appellants herein, to put forth their case. It is well settled principles of law that whenever any authority, empowered to adjudicate any matter, then such authority shall follow the principles of natural justice. If any claim is put forth by one party and the similar claim is also put forth by another party or the second party files any objections to the claim of the first party, then it is for the authority to adjudicate the said dispute by holding summary enquiry by giving an opportunity of being heard to both parties.

10. In this case, the 1st Respondent has not given any such opportunity of being heard to

NC: 2025:KHC:44327

HC-KAR

the Appellants herein before passing of the impugned order. On the other hand, he simply referred the application of the 1st Appellant, his objections as against the claim of the 2nd Respondent and passed the impugned order mainly on the reports of the Tahsildar, Tumkur, Assistant Commissioner, Tumkur, opinion of his legal advisor and by referring some observations made by the Hon'ble High Court in W.P.Nos.12764-765/2012. He has not concluded any summary enquiry as per Sec.34 of the Act. As per Sec.36 of the Act, every summary enquiry shall be in public and after giving notice to the parties or their recognized agents. But, in this case, apparently on the face of the record, it can be said that the 1st Respondent has not conducted any such enquiry as contemplated u/s.34 & 36 of the Act and therefore, the impugned order can be said as against the principles of natural justice. We find substantial force in the contention of the appellants that the impugned order is passed without giving an opportunity of being heard. Moreover, the 1st Respondent has not stated whether the application filed by the 1st Appellant herein has been rejected or not.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44327

HC-KAR

11. Since, the impugned order is passed against the principles of natural justice, therefore the same deserves to be set aside. In our considered view this matter is required to be remitted back to the 1st Respondent with a direction to hold a summary enquiry in respect of the claims of both the parties and pass appropriate orders, after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard. With these observations we have answered the point under consideration accordingly.

12. Point No.2: For the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The Appeal filed u/s.49(C) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is hereby allowed.

The order of the 1st Respondent dt.06.03.2015, passed in Phada:Viva:4/2014-15 is hereby set aside.

The matter is remitted back to the 1st Respondent for fresh consideration of the claims of the Appellants and 2nd Respondent herein, for restoration of the Khatha of the lands in question

- 11 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44327

HC-KAR

and pass appropriate orders after giving an opportunity of being heard to both the parties.

Office is hereby directed to send the copy of this Judgment to the Respondent No.1, within 30 days, through registered post along with the LCR."

6. A perusal of the impugned order will indicate that the

sole ground on which the KAT has allowed the appeal and

set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner and

remitted the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for

reconsideration afresh, in accordance with law is by

coming to the conclusion that sufficient and reasonable

opportunity had not been provided in favour of

respondents No.2 to 7 before passing the impugned order

which was violative of principles of natural justice. It is

also pertinent to note that in the entire impugned order

passed by the KAT, no opinion has been expressed on

merits and demerits of the appeal and the matter has

been remitted back to first respondent-Deputy

Commissioner for reconsideration afresh by conducting

- 12 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44327

HC-KAR

denova proceedings and by conducting necessary enquiry

in this regard. Under these circumstances, having regard

to the fact that rights and contentions of the parties,

including the petitioner herein have not been adjudicated

upon by the KAT in the impugned order which merely set

aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner on the ground

of violation of principles of natural justice, it cannot be

said that the impugned order passed by the KAT would

cause any prejudice or hardship to the petitioner, nor

would it affect the alleged rights and contentions of the

petitioner, so as to warrant interference by this court in

the exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India.

7. Under these circumstances, I deem it just and

appropriate to dispose of this petition without interfering

with the impugned order and by directing the Deputy

Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh, after

providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity to all

- 13 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44327

HC-KAR

parties and to proceed further in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible.

8. In the result, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is hereby disposed, without

interfering with the impugned order.

(ii) The Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose

of the proceedings afresh in accordance with law, in terms

of the impugned order by provisions sufficient and

reasonable opportunity to the petitioner as well as

respondents No.2 to 7 in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible.

(iii) All rival contentions and all aspects of the

matter between the petitioner and respondents No.2 to 7

as well as the impleading applicants are kept open and no

opinion is expressed on the same.

(iv) In view disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2023

filed by the impleading applicants does not survive for

consideration and the same is disposed of, reserving