[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M. Shivappa S/O. Late M Hanumappa vs The Deputy Commissioner on 10 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3749
WP No. 103297 of 2018
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 103297 OF 2018 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
M. SHIVAPPA S/O. LATE M.HANUMAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
OCC:RETIRED,
R/O. NEAR REMAND HOME,
DEVI NAGAR, BALLARI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY.B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
BALLARI,
BALLARI TALUK AND DISTRICT.
Digitally signed
by
PREMCHANDRA 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
MR MOKA HUBLI,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF TALUK: BALLARI,
KARNATAKA
DISTRICT: BALLARI.
5. M.KANDEGOUDA @ MULEMANE KANDEGOUDA
S/O. MALLAPPA,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR'S.,
5A. M.GADILING S/O. LATE M.KANDEGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENAKALLU VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT:BALLARI.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3749
WP No. 103297 of 2018
HC-KAR
5B. SMT. M. RUKMANEMMA W/O. LATE M.KANDEGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENAKALLU VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT: BALLARI.
6. M.SHANTI S/O. LATE M.GADILINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENAKAL VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT BALLARI.
7. M.RAMALINGAPPA S/O. LATE M.GADILINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENAKAL VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT:BALLARI.
8. M.NAGARAJ S/O. LATE M. GADILINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENAKAL VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT:BALLARI.
9. M.SIDDARAMAPPA S/O. LATE M.BASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
OCC:AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BENAKAL VILLAGE,
TALUK AND DISTRICT:BALLARI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. MALA.B.BHUTE, AGA FOR R1-R4;
NOTICE TO R6-R8 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED;
NOTICE TO R5A-R5B, R9 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
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:3749
WP No. 103297 of 2018
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath., counsel for the
petitioner and Smt.Mala B.Bhute., Additional Government
Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 have appeared in person.
2. The writ petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing of the order
dated 22.11.2017 passed by the 1st respondent
which is produced at Annexure-G in Appeal
No.19/2013-14;
b. Issue such other writ or order as direction as
deemed fit in the interest of justice.
3. It is stated that the fifth respondent opposed the
entry of the petitioner's name in respect of only one property,
i.e., RS No.78B measuring to an extent of 50 cents situated at
Benakal Village, Taluk and District Ballari. Hence, the case was
registered as Disputed Case No.87/2007-2008. The Tahsildar, by
an order dated 05.08.2009, rejected the petition on the ground
that the partition as contended is forged and, hence, the
petitioner's name cannot be entered. Aggrieved by the said
order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant
Commissioner in Revenue Appeal No.319/2010-11. The Assistant
Commissioner, vide order dated 04.12.2012, allowed the appeal
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3749
HC-KAR
by setting aside the mutation and entered the name of the
petitioner. The fifth respondent challenged the order of the
Assistant Commissioner by filing a Revision Petition before the
Deputy Commissioner, Ballari, in Revision Petition No.19/2013-
14. The Deputy Commissioner, vide order dated 22.11.2017,
allowed the Revision Petition. Under these circumstances, the
petitioner has filed this captioned writ petition on several
grounds as set out in the memorandum of the writ petition.
4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contetnions.
Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B. Hiremath, counsel for the
petitioner, in presenting his arguments, drew the Court's
attention to the order sheet of the proceedings before the
Deputy Commissioner to contend that the case was called out on
26.07.2017 and the appellant was absent. A submission was
made to the Deputy Commissioner that the appellant was not
appearing in the case and was protracting the proceedings,
thereby causing undue hardship to the petitioner. Therefore, it
was prayed that necessary orders be passed. He argued by
saying that the Deputy Commissioner, at best, could have
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3749
HC-KAR
dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution; however, he
proceeded with the matter and allowed the Revision Petition.
5. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with
care.
6. The true copy of the order sheet is furnished along
with the Writ Petition. As is evident from the same, on
26.07.2017, the fifth respondent was absent. As the fifth
respondent having failed to appear, the petitioner requested the
Deputy Commissioner to take note of his absence and to pass
appropriate orders. Despite the petitioner's submission, the
Deputy Commissioner proceeded with the matter and allowed
the Revision Petition. It is my considered view that in the
absence of the fifth respondent (petitioner before the Deputy
Commissioner), the Deputy Commissioner was limited to
dismissing the revision for non prosecution, rendering the order
on merits legally unsustainable.
7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The impugned
intimation letters dated 22.11.2017 issued by respondent No.1
vide Annexure - G is quashed. Matter is remitted back to the
NC: 2026:KHC-D:3749
HC-KAR
Deputy Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh and pass
appropriate order in accordance with law.
8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
AM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40
