Hussainsab S/O Mahabubsab Balappannavar Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE MR NO.H37 DATED 28.08.2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TO DELETE THE NAME OF RESPONDENT NO.5 AND RESTORE THE NAME OF PETITIONERS IN COLUMN NO.9 AND 12 IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.418/1 MEASURING 1 ACRE 30 GUNTAS SITUATED AT KONNUR VILLAGE, TQ: NARGUND, DIST: GADAG VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN REVENUE RECORDS AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶30

Learned AGA takes notice for respondent Nos.1

¶31

to 4 and learned counsel Sri.Ahmed Ali Rehmanshah, is directed to take notice for respondent No.5.

¶32

This petition is filed by the petitioners seeking to quash mutation entry bearing M.R.No.H37 dated 28.08.2019 passed by respondent No.4 and consequently direct respondent No.4 to enter the name of the petitioners in column Nos.9 and 12 of the Revenue Records in respect of Sy.No.418/1 measuring 01 acres 30

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9104 WP No. 102526 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

guntas situated at Konnur Village, Nargund Taluk, Gadag District.

¶36

The petitioners contend that they are the absolute owners in possession and enjoyment of the land bearing Sy.No.418/1 measuring 01 acres 30 guntas situated at Konnur Village, Nargund Taluk, Gadag District. The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in favour of the petitioners. Based on the aforesaid grant of occupancy rights, their names are entered in the record of rights.

¶37

This being the state of affairs, the revenue authorities without any basis, cogent reason and without affording any opportunity or issuing notice to the petitioners and in violation of principles of natural justice and so also the provisions of Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, have entered the name as “Waqf property” in Column Nos.9 and 12 of record of rights in respect of aforesaid petitioners’ land. The

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9104 WP No. 102526 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

petitioners, aggrieved by the said order of change of entry in the name of respondent No.5, are before this Court.

¶41

The vehement contention of learned counsel for

¶42

the petitioners is that, respondent Nos.1 & 2 - Authorities have neither issued notice nor heard the petitioners while passing the impugned order and have changed the entry in the name of respondent No.5 in Column Nos.9 and 12 of the Record of Rights.

¶43

The fundamental rule of law is that, while Government and other authorities pass any order, it is incumbent upon them to issue notice to the aggrieved/concerned party and provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to the party and pass suitable orders in accordance with law. In the present case, admittedly, no notice has been issued to the petitioners by respondent No.4, which is in clear violation of principles of natural justice.

¶44

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:9104 WP No. 102526 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

In view of above discussion, I proceed to pass

¶47

the following:

¶48

ORDER

¶49

i. Petition is allowed.

¶50

ii. Mutation entry dated 28.08.2019 bearing MR.No.H37 passed by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-B is quashed.

¶51

iii. The entry in the name of respondent No.5 in column Nos.9 and 12 of Record of Rights in respect of land bearing Sy.No.418/1 measuring 01 acres 30 guntas situated at Konnur Village, Nargund Taluk, Gadag District, shall be deleted and the name of the petitioners shall be restored, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶52

iv. Liberty is reserved to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to initiate fresh enquiry by issuing notice to the petitioners, if called for and if so advised.

¶53

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶54

gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Hussainsab S/O Mahabubsab Balappannavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hussainsab S/O Mahabubsab Balappannavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Balu Alias Balakrishna Karvekar Vs Union of India

Smt. Rashmi K Lokare W/O Kedar Vs North West Karntaka Road Transport Corporation

Sri. Shrimanth Sulemanappa Bagalkot Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S.Indus Towers Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Freshgreen Agro Exports Pvt. Ltd, Vs the Commissioner of Commercial Taxes

Smt Kavita W.O. Subhash Tiwari Vs Mukesh S.O. Harijivandas Patadia