Karnataka High Court

Smt Vijayalaxmi W/O Narayanappa ... vs The Deputy Commissioner on 13 October, 2025

Author: M.Nagaprasanna

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                                                -1-
                                                          NC: 2025:KHC-D:13740
                                                        WP No. 100717 of 2025


                    HC-KAR


                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD
                             DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
                                              BEFORE
                             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
                             WRIT PETITION NO. 100717 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
                   BETWEEN:

                   SMT. VIJAYALAXMI
                   W/O. NARAYANAPPA CHINNAMULAGUND,
                   AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                   R/O: ISHWAR NAGAR, HANGAL - 581 104,
                   TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
                                                                   ...PETITIONER
                   (BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
                        HAVERI DISTRICT, DEVAGIRI,
                        HAVERI 581110, TQ: HANGAL,
                        DIST: HAVERI.

                   2.   THE CHIEF OFFICER,
                        TOWN MUNICIPALITY, HANGAL - 581 104,
                        TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

                   3.   THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
Digitally signed        HOLEKOTE VILLAGE, HANGAL - 581 104,
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR                 TQ: HANGAL, DIST: HAVERI.
Location: High                                                   ...RESPONDENTS
Court of
Karnataka,         (BY SRI. V.S.KALSURMATH, AGA FOR R1;
Dharwad Bench,
Dharwad            SRI. SANTHOSH B. MANE, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
                   R3 - SERVED)

                        THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
                   OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR
                   ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS
                   DIRECTING THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO ISSUE E-SWATHU EXTRACT IN
                   RESPECT OF THE PETITION PROPERTIES ARE BEARING PLOT NO.38,
                   39, 34, 40 AND 41 OF TMC NO.3366/A, OF HANGAL TALUKA
                   DIST HAVERI BY RECTIFYING THE MEASUREMENTS AND BOUNDARIES
                   BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 30.01.2024 AS PER
                   ANNEXURE-L AND ETC.,
                                 -2-
                                             NC: 2025:KHC-D:13740
                                          WP No. 100717 of 2025


HC-KAR


      THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

                          ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

following prayer:

a. To issue a Writ or Order or Direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue E-Swathu Extract in respect of the petition properties are bearing Plot No.38, 39, 34, 40 and 41 of TMC No.3366/A, of Hangal Taluka Dist Haveri by rectifying the measurements and boundaries by considering the representations dated 30.01.2024 as per Annexure-L.

b. Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit by this Hon'bel court in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Shriharsh A.

Neelopant for the petitioner, learned AGA

Sri.V.S.Kalasurmath for respondent No.1 and the learned

counsel Sri.Santhosh B.Mane appearing for respondent

No.2.

3. This very petitioner was before this Court in Writ

Petition No.103414 of 2022, which comes to be disposed on

17.04.2023. The issue concerned is the subject issue. It

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13740

HC-KAR

was issuance of e-swathu therein. The Co-ordinate Bench

has directed as follows:

"The captioned writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

i) To issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to issue e-Swathu extract in respect of the petition properties bearing Plot No.38, 39, 34, 40 and 41 of TMC No.3366/A, of Hangal Taluka Dist.Haveri by considering the representations dated 27.05.2022, 04.06.2022, 24.06.2022, 21.07.2022 as per annexure-D, E, H and J, respectively.

ii) Grant such other reliefs as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner's grievance is that the Competent Civil Court has declared that the petitioner is owner in possession and perpetual injunction is granted which is confirmed by this Court in RSA No.100008/2018. The Special Leave Petition (Civil Diary No.22153/2022 preferred against the judgment of this Court in RSA No.10000/2018 also came to be dismissed, however respondent No.2 failed to consider the representations made by the petitioner vide Annexure-D, E, H and J. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court alleging inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in not issuing e-Swathu extract in respect of properties bearing No.38, 39, 40 and 41.

3. Heard the counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and the learned AGA.

4. The petitioner claims to be the owner of property bearing TMC No.3366/A of Hangal Taluk, Haveri District. The petitioner was compelled to institute a suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.177/2009 seeking injunction against the respondents. The said suit was decreed granting perpetual injunction thereby restraining the respondents

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13740

HC-KAR

from encroaching over petitioner's properties and forming a new road. In the said suit, the respondent No.2 claimed that plot No.39 and 40 are not in existence. Respondent No.2 further claimed that plot No.40 is part and parcel of Mukarthi Honda. The Court of first instance in O.S.No.177/2009 on examining the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, held that respondent No.2 has failed to substantiate that plot No.39 and 40 are not part and parcel of TMC No. 3366/A. Consequently, suit was decreed. The Appellate Court reversed the finding of the Trial Court only on the premise that petitioner has not sought relief of declaration of title. This Court in RSA No.100008/2018 reversed the finding of the Appellate Court. While reversing the finding of theAppellate Court, this Court has taken cognizance of the admission elicited in the cross examination of the Chief Officer, who was examined as DW2. Referring to these admissions, this Court has come to the conclusion that there is no dispute over the petitioner's title. Therefore, a specific finding is recorded holding that plaintiff's title is not in dispute. This Court has reversed the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court and consequently confirmed the judgment rendered by the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of this Court it appears that respondent No.2 preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court declined to grant leave and therefore, the special leave petition was withdrawn with a liberty to file review.

5. In the light of these significant details, the short point that needs consideration is whether respondent No.2 on the premise that review petition is pending is entitled not to act upon the representation submitted by the petitioners. To the show-cause issued by respondent No.2 vide AnnexureR5, the petitioner has submitted representations and also additional representation dated 21.07.2022. If the judgment and decree rendered by this Court has attained finality and if respondent No.2 has not secured any interim order at the hands of this Court in review proceedings, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has a legal right to secure property extracts pertaining to the properties which are covered under the decree passed in O.S.No.177/2009. Respondent No.2 being a local authority, is equally bound by the decree passed by this competent Civil Court. There is corresponding duty cast on respondent No.2 to implement and give effect to the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13740

HC-KAR

decree passed by the competent civil Court. Respondent No.2 being a local authority lacks competence in not giving effect to the decree passed by the competent Court on adjudication.

6. The stand taken in statement of objections would lead to an inference that respondent is virtually again disputing the petitioner's title over the properties which is decided and has attained finality. Respondent No.2 cannot be permitted to re-litigate on the same cause of action which is given quietus in view of withdrawal of Special Leave Petition by respondent No.2 in SLP No.22153/2022. Therefore, this is a fit case where a mandamus lies. There is an inaction on the part of respondent No.2 in not giving effect to the decree passed by the Competent Civil Court in O.S.No.177/2009, which is confirmed by this Court in RSA No.100008/2018. For the foregoing reasons, I pass the following:

ORDER

a. The writ petition is allowed.

b. Respondent No.2 is hereby directed to consider the representations dated 27.05.2022, 04.06.2022, 24.06.2022, 21.07.2022 as per annexure-D, E, H and J, respectively, and pass appropriate orders bearing in mind the findings recorded by this Court in RSA No.100008/2018.

c. The notice issued by respondent No.2 vide Annexure- R5 is of no consequence and respondent No.2 is bound by the decree passed in O.S.No.177/2009, which is confirmed by this Court in RSA No.100008/2018.

d. Respondent No.2 shall act strictly in terms of decree passed by this Court in RSA No.100008/2018.

e. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order."

NC: 2025:KHC-D:13740

HC-KAR

4. The present petition as observed herein above is

an offshoot of the said order. Offshoot is not with regard to

the mistake of the petitioner, but the mistake of the

respondents. The e-swatthu is said to be now issued

contrary to the records.

5. The Learned AGA submits that if an appeal is

preferred under the Land Revenue Act, the petitioner would

have an efficacious remedy of correction of the boundaries