[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Nagappa S/O Siddappa Terani vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982
WP No. 110094 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 110094 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. NAGAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA TERANI
AGE: 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHIRGAON, HUKKERI TALUK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591 309.
2. SURESH S/O. SIDDAPPA TERANI
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SHIRGAON, HUKKERI TALUK,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591 309.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally
signed by
GIRIJA A.
GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BYAHATTI KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date:
2026.02.11
BY ITS SECRETARY TO
14:46:49
+0530
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS, HUKKERI TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT -591 309.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982
WP No. 110094 of 2025
HC-KAR
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
HUKKERI TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591 309.
4. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
AND EX OFFICE DDLR,
BELAGAVI-590 002.
5. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF
LAND RECORDS,
BELAGAVI DIVISION,
BELAGAVI-590 002.
6. PRAVEENKUMAR KADAPPA MALAJ
41 YEARS, JAYANAGAR,
HUKKERI TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-591 309.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SMT. P.G.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE NOTICE DATED 5-12-2025 ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT 2 INITIATING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IN
RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING SY.NO.284
MEASURING 1 ACRE 14 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT HUKKERI,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982
WP No. 110094 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has called in question the notice dated
05.12.2025 issued by respondent No.2 - the Assistant
Director of Land Records, Hukkeri Taluk, initiating
survey proceedings in respect of agricultural land
bearing Survey No.284, measuring 1 acre 14 guntas,
situated at Hukkeri Taluk, Belagavi District.
2. Brief facts of the case:
2.1. The petitioner claims ownership and possession
of the agricultural land bearing Survey No.284.
Alleging obstruction to their access by
respondent No.6, petitioner has instituted
O.S.No.174 of 2021 before the Court of Civil
Judge and JMFC, Hukkeri, seeking the relief of
permanent injunction. The said suit is pending
adjudication.
2.2. During the pendency of the civil suit, respondent
No.6 filed W.P.No.101680 of 2025 before this
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982
HC-KAR
Court seeking consideration of his representation
by the revenue authorities. By order dated
17.09.2025, this Court directed the Assistant
Director of Land Records ('ADLR' for short) to
consider the representation and pass appropriate
orders after issuing notice to all stakeholders.
2.3. Pursuant thereto, the ADLR issued the impugned
notice dated 05.12.2025, calling upon the parties
to appear in the survey proceedings in respect of
the schedule property.
2.4. Aggrieved by initiation of survey proceedings,
the petitioner is before this Court in this writ
petition.
3. Contention of the petitioner:
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to
conduct a survey when the civil rights relating to
access and enjoyment of the land are sub judice
before the Civil Court in O.S.No.174 of 2021.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982
HC-KAR
3.2. It is further submitted that the order passed by
this Court in W.P.No.101680 of 2025 did not
authorise initiation of survey proceedings, but
merely directed the ADLR to consider the
representation.
3.3. It is submitted that the impugned notice would
prejudice the petitioner's case before the Civil
Court and amounts to parallel proceedings.
3.4. In support of his contentions, learned counsel
placed reliance on the decision of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in the case of G. Gowri
v. Union of India and Others1 (G. Gowri)
dated 06.01.2023, and another decision of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras in the case of Bethanna @ Bethanna
Iyer and Another v. Raji and Others2
(Bethanna), to contend that, a mere direction to
W.P.Nos.2058 and 2061 of 2023 disposed of on 10.07.2023
W.P.No.3160 of 2025 and CMP No.25708 of 2025 disposed of on 22.10.2025
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982
HC-KAR
consider an application for conducting a survey
under the relevant Act is not maintainable and
such directions do not advance the cause of
justice, but instead lead to multiplicity of
proceedings.
3.5. It is submitted that the writ court cannot issue
such directions and that the parties must be
relegated to the Civil Court to establish their
rights, which admittedly is pending in the
present case in O.S.No.741 of 2021.
4. Contention of respondent No.6:
4.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.6 submits that the petitioner had
submitted an application pursuant to which the
Tahsildar, Hukkeri, issued a letter dated
06.07.2022 (Annexure-R1) and despite issuance
of said letter by the Tahsildar, no survey was
conducted. The petitioner thereafter submitted a
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982
HC-KAR
subsequent representation on 11.05.2025
(Annexure-R2). Non-consideration of the said
representation compelled respondent No.6 to
approach this Court in the earlier writ petition,
pursuant to which a direction was issued to the
authority to consider the representation in light
of the letter issued by the Tahsildar.
4.2. Learned counsel further submits that the ADLR
has issued notice to all stakeholders in
compliance with the earlier order passed by this
Court and that no prejudice would be caused to
the petitioner. It is also contended that the order
passed in W.P.No.101680 of 2025 has attained
finality, as the same has not been challenged.
5. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
6. A demarcation survey conducted by the revenue
authorities by itself does not determine or extinguish
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982
HC-KAR
the title or civil rights of the parties. A careful reading
of the order dated 17.09.2025 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.101680 of 2025 makes it clear that the ADLR
was directed to consider the representation of
respondent No.6 after issuing notice to all
stakeholders. The impugned notice has been issued
pursuant thereto and after putting the petitioner on
notice.
7. In the decisions relied upon by the petitioner in G.
Gauri and Bethana, though it is held that the Writ
Court cannot mechanically issue directions to conduct
survey and that a mere direction to "consider" should
not be treated a mandate to conduct a survey, the
facts of the present case stand on a different footing.
The material on record discloses that an earlier
application had been submitted, pursuant to which the
Tahsildar had issued a letter dated 06.07.2022
directing the ADLR to conduct a survey. On non-
implementation of the said letter, a further
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982
HC-KAR
representation was made, which led to the earlier writ
petition and the consequential direction to consider
the representation. Therefore, the contention that no
application existed or the authorities lacked
jurisdiction cannot be accepted.
8. The apprehension expressed by the petitioner that the
survey would prejudice the case pending before the
Civil Court is misplaced. In the present case, survey
confined to examining whether a pot kharab area of
20 guntas is included in Survey No.284 and does not
amount to determining civil rights. Accordingly, no
illegality is found in the issuance of the impugned
notice by the ADLR.
9. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is dismissed as being devoid of
merit.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1982
HC-KAR
ii. It is needless to state that while conducting the
survey, the Assistant Director of Land Records shall
consider the objections, if any, filed by the
petitioner, in accordance with law.
iii. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the
learned Addl. Government Advocate that, though a
direction was issued in the earlier petition, to
conclude the survey within eight weeks, however,
the survey could not be concluded within the
stipulated time and further extension is sought.
iv. Having regard to the nature of the exercise, an
additional period of two months from today is
granted to complete the survey proceedings.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
gab
Ct:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10
