Manjunath S/O Timmappa Naik, Vs the Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Manjunath S/O Timmappa Naik, Vs the Deputy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of; petitioners directed to urge all contentions (including the alleged un-notified spot inspection and the Form No.50 point) before the Appellate Authority; time spent from 23.07.2017 to be excluded in computing limitation; registry to return the copy of the impugned order retaining the Xerox copy.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition can be entertained by the writ Court given that the impugned order is appealable under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules. +2 more

Court's answer

All contentions raised in the writ petition have to be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioners contend that the alleged spot inspection by the committee was conducted without notice to them, that point has to be urged before the Appellate Authority, and the Appellate Authority has to consider the same in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

The time spent in prosecuting the present writ petition from 23.07.2017 till date has to be excluded in computing the limitation, if any.ratio¶48
The registry shall return the copy of the impugned order to the petitioners after retaining the Xerox copy.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral order (single judge, Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, 06.11.2025) disposing of Writ Petition No. 101989 of 2017 (KLR-REG), filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order/proceedings dated 24.10.2016 passed by Respondent No.3, the Tahasildar-cum-Secretary to the Honavar Taluka Committee for Unauthorized Regularization (Annexure-E). As the impugned order was submitted to be appealable under the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules and was admittedly passed after hearing the petitioners, the Court did not adjudicate the contentions in the writ forum: the alleged spot inspection conducted without notice to the petitioners, and the point that Form No.50 was not filed by the petitioners, were left to be urged before the Appellate Authority, which is to consider all contentions in accordance with law. The Court protected the petitioners on limitation by excluding the time spent prosecuting the petition from 23.07.2017 till date, and directed the registry to return the copy of the impugned order after retaining the Xerox copy. No precedents were cited; no quantum involved.

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:15213 WP No. 101989 of 2017

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

WRIT PETITION NO. 101989 OF 2017 (KLR-REG)

BETWEEN:

MANJUNATH S/O TIMMAPPA NAIK, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAYKINI MAHIME, POST: SARALAGI, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

NARAYAN S/O HONNAPPA NAIK, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.,

2(i). SHRI RAMA S/O NARAYAN NAIK, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GERSOPPA JYOTHINAGAR, MAHIME, POST: SARALAGI, TQ. HONAVAR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581 384.

2(ii). SHRI LAXMAN S/O NARAYAN NAIK, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAMBARAGADDE, MAHIME, POST: SARALAGI, TQ. HONAVAR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581 384.

Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

2(iii). SMT. GEETA W/O GANAPATI NAIK, AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GERSOPPA JYOTHINAGAR, MAHIME, POST: SARALAGI, TQ. HONAVAR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581 384.

2(iv). SMT. BHARATI W/O VISHNU NAIK, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BARNAKERI, KHARWA, TQ. HONAVAR, DIST. UTTAR KANNADA-581 361.

SMT. SAROJA W/O MANJUNATH NAIK, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD,

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15213 WP No. 101989 of 2017

HC-KAR

R/O. KAYKINI MAHIME, POST: SARALAGI, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

… PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. A.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BHATKAL SUB-DIVISION, BHATKAL, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

THE TAHASILDAR AND THE SECRETARY TO THE HONAVAR TALUKA COMMITTEE FOR UNAUTHORIZED REGULARIZATION, HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

SHRI. NARAYAN S/O SUBBAYYA NAIK, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O MAHIME, POST: SARALAGI, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

SHRI. HANUMANT S/O SUBBU NAIK, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAHIME, POST: SARALAGI, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

SHRI. NARAYAN S/O SUBBU NAIK, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MAHIME, POST: SARALAGI, TQ: HONAVAR, DIST: UTTAR KANNADA.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. SURESH S. BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER/PROCEEDINGS DATED 24.10.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURE-E.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15213 WP No. 101989 of 2017

HC-KAR

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

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)

Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the impugned order is appealable under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules.

Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the spot inspection which is said to have been conducted is without notice to the petitioners as such, the writ Court can entertain the petition.

It is not in dispute that the order is passed after hearing the petitioners.

Under these circumstances, if the petitioners are to contend that the alleged spot inspection by the committee is conducted without notice to the petitioners, that point has to be urged by the petitioners before the Appellate Authority and Appellate Authority has to consider the same in accordance with law.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:15213 WP No. 101989 of 2017

HC-KAR

Learned counsel for the contesting private

respondents would also submit that Form No.50 itself is not filed by the petitioners.

All contentions have to be considered by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law.

The time spent in prosecuting the present petition from 23.07.2017 till date has to be excluded in computing the limitation, if any.

The registry shall return the copy of the impugned order to the petitioners after retaining the Xerox copy.

Writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE

CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 29