[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
S Kattebasappa Alias Guddada Basappa ... vs The Deputy Commissioner on 9 April, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5340
WP No. 103958 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 103958 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. S. KATTEBASAPPA @ GUDDADA BASAPPA
S/O LATE S. SHARANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. KARADIHALLI VILLAGE,
MOLAKALMURU TALUK,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT,
PIN-577 535.
2. G.B. NAGARAJ S/O S. KATTEBASAPPA,
AGRICULTURE AND HOTEL BUSINESS,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/O. HARAGINADONI VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT,
Digitally
signed by
PIN-583 115.
... PETITIONERS
SAMREEN
SAMREEN AYUB
AYUB DESHNUR
DESHNUR Location:
HIGH
(BY SRI. B. CHIDANANDA, ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI DISTRICT,
D.C. COMPOUND,
BALLARI-583 101.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI SUB -DIVISION,
BALLARI-583 101.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5340
WP No. 103958 of 2022
HC-KAR
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
BALLARI TALUK,
BALLARI-583 101.
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
BALLARI HOBLI,
BALLARI-583 101.
5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
HARAGINADONI VILLAGE,
BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT,
BALLARI-583 101.
6. SMT. BUGGESHWARI W/O LATE KATTEBASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, KIRANA BUSINESS,
R/O. HARAGINADONI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI-583 115.
7. S. NAGARAJ S/O LATE S. SHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, HOTEL BUSINESS,
R/O. HARAGINADONI VILLAGE,
TQ. AND DIST. BALLARI, PIN-583 115.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI.B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
NOTICE TO R6 AND R7 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5340
WP No. 103958 of 2022
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Sri.B.Chidananda., counsel for the petitioners and
Smt.Nandini B.Somapur., AGA for respondents 1 to 5 have
appeared in person.
2. The petition is filed seeking following reliefs:
"i) To call for records.
ii) To Issue a writ of Certiorari by quashing the impugned
endorsement dated 12-1-2022 (typed as 12-1-2222), made
in REV.APL No. 01/2021-22, Passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Ballari, (R1) (vide Annexure-L) and also the
order dated 29-10-2021, made in
Sum.Kandaya/APPEAL/244/2015-16, passed by the
Assistant Commissioner, Ballari, R2 (vide ANNEXURE-H)
and further to quash the M.R. No. H27/2015-2016, dated
23-04-2016, passed by Respondent No. 4 (Annexure-G)
herein, in the interest of justice and equity.
iii) To issue any other Writ or Order or Direction, which
this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice and equity."
3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with
care.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5340
HC-KAR
4. The petitioners' grievance stems from the actions of
respondent No. 7 (the brother of Kattebasappa) and the husband
of respondent No.6, who allegedly created a partition deed and
secured the entry of their names into the revenue records by
submitting a varadi to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar subsequently
updated the records on October 2, 2010.
Aggrieved by this entry, the petitioners filed an appeal
before the Assistant Commissioner. However, on October 29,
2021, the Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal. The
petitioners contend that although there was a delay in filing, the
Assistant Commissioner failed to pass a separate order on the
application for condonation of delay, proceeding instead to
dismiss the appeal on its merits. Challenging this, the petitioners
filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, who
ultimately confirmed the Assistant Commissioner's order.
Furthermore, it is submitted that Kattebasappa passed
away while the appeal was still pending before the Assistant
Commissioner. During this period, respondents 6 and 7
submitted another varadi to the Tahsildar, who updated the
revenue records without notifying the petitioners or
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5340
HC-KAR
acknowledging the pending appeal. Consequently,
Kattebasappa's name was deleted and replaced by his wife's
name. Given these procedural lapses, the petitioners maintain
that the matter requires a remand.
It is undisputed that the petitioners had already challenged
the original 2010 entry. However, the Assistant Commissioner
proceeded without formally condoning the delay. Moreover, the
Tahsildar should not have altered the mutation entries while the
appeal was sub judice. Given these procedural lapses, the matter
requires a remand.
ORDER
i. The Writ Petition is allowed and remanded.
ii. The matter is remanded to the Assistant Commissioner
for fresh consideration. The Assistant Commissioner is
directed to first pass a speaking order on the
application for condonation of delay.
iii. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order
dated:29.10.2021 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner vide Annexure-H; the order
NC: 2026:KHC-D:5340
HC-KAR
dated:23.04.2016 passed by respondent No.4 vide
Annexure-G, and the endorsement dated:12.01.2022
passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-L,
are quashed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
MRP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 88
