Dismissed¶59

Rachayya S/O Gangayya Aliyas Gangadharaswami Karimani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2025WP/106826/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay condonation refused: appeal under S.136(2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act filed in 2021, nearly 24 years after the 1997 Tahasildar order under S.58(2) Karnataka Land Reforms Act deleting the father's name from Block No.516 (2 acres 13 Guntas, Kotur village, Dharwad Taluk) and reserving it for public purposes; no cultivation/tax/ownership documents produced, only RTCs; revision under S.136(3) dismissed by Deputy Commissioner on 08-02-2022; writ petition dismissed. High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Suraj Govindaraj J, 18-02-2025.

What did the court decide?

After a lapse of nearly 24 years, the delay in filing the appeal under Section 136(2) was rightly refused to be condoned by the Assistant Commissioner, and that order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. ¶58

Rachayya S/O Gangayya Aliyas Gangadharaswami… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3263 WP No. 106826 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶3

DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 106826 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

RACHAYYA S/O. GANGAYYA @ GANGADHARASWAMI KARIMANI, AGE: 79 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BUDIHAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591104.

¶10

NAGAVVA W/O. IRAYYA KARJAGIMATH, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. YARGATTI, TQ: SAVADATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591129.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. ARUN L. NEELOPANT & SMT. KAVITA S. JADHAV, ADVOCATES)

¶13

AND:

¶14

GIRIJA A BYAHATTI

¶15

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REP. BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001.

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580001.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580001.

¶19

THE TAHASILDAR, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580001.

¶20

THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, GARAG, TQ: DIST: DHARWAD-580105.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3263 WP No. 106826 of 2023

¶23

TEERTHAYYA S/O. GANGAYYA @ GANGADHARASWAMI KARIMANI, R/O. H.NO.3005, KHANAPUR PLOT, HARINAGAR, 2^ND CROSS, NIPPANI, TQ: NIPPANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591237.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1-R5)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF WRIT CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD DISTRICT BEARING NO. RP/43/2021 DATED 08-02-2022 DISMISSING THE APPEAL/REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 136(3) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, AS PER ANNEXURE-A; ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 BEARING NO.RTS/CR/78/2021 DATED 17-112021 DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONERS UNDER SECTION 136(2) OF KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, AS PER ANNEXURE-B; ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.4 TAHASILDAR DHARWAD BEARING NUMBER KRA. K L R C R 510/97-98 DATED 30-09-1997 PASSED UNDER SECTION 58(2) OF KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, AS PER ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶30

Learned AGA accepts notice for Respondents No.1 to

¶31

Notice to Respondent No.6 is dispensed with in

¶32

view of the order proposed to be passed.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:3263 WP No. 106826 of 2023

¶35

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶36

following reliefs:

¶37

i. ISSUE a writ, order or directions in the nature of writ certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner Dharwad District bearing No. RP/43/2021 dated 08-02-2022 dismissing the appeal/Revision petition filed by the Petitioners under section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, as per ANNEXURE-A;

¶38

ii. ISSUE a writ, order or directions in the nature of Writ of certiorari to quash the impugned Order passed by the Respondent No.3 bearing No.RTS/CR/78/2021 dated 17-11-2021 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners under section 136(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, as per ANNEXURE-B;

¶39

iii. ISSUE a writ, order or directions in the nature of Writ of certiorari to quash the impugned order passed by the Respondent No.4 Tahasildar Dharwad bearing number kra. k l r c r 510/97-98 dated 30-09-1997 passed under Section 58(2) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, as per ANNEXURE-C, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶40

iv. PASS any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case including award of costs, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶41

The facts in brief are;

¶42

3.1. The petitioner claims that the land in Block

¶43

No.516 measuring 2 acres 13 Guntas of Kotur

¶44

village, Dharwad Taluk belonged to the father

¶45

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3263 WP No. 106826 of 2023

¶46

of Petitioners No.1 and 2 and father of Respondent No.6.

¶47

3.2. The name of the petitioners’ father was entered into in respect of Block No.516 measuring 2 acres 13 guntas of Kottur village, Dharwad Taluk. The father of the petitioners is stated to have expired on 17.08.1998 leaving behind the petitioners and Respondent No.6 as his legal heirs.

¶48

3.3. Earlier an entry had been made in the name of Takanagowda, S/o.Mallanagowda in the cultivators column from the year 1973-74 and 1974-75 and his name had been entered into in the record of rights as per M.E.No.2527, irrespective of which, it is claimed that the father of the petitioners and respondent No.6, continued to cultivate the property.

¶49

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3263 WP No. 106826 of 2023

¶50

3.4. In the year 1997, respondent No.4 passed an order stating that, no person had filed form No.7 claiming occupancy rights and there was unauthorized construction which had been put up in the said property and as such, an enquiry having been conducted, it being found that there is no real owner who is available, the name of the father of the petitioners and respondent No.6 was deleted and in the patta at column No.6, the name of this Government was entered into and in column No.9, endorsement was made that the property is reserved for public purposes.

¶51

3.5. It is challenging the same that the petitioners filed an appeal under Subsection (2) of Section 136 of the Act of 1964, in the year 2021 in Appeal No. RTS/CR/78/2021, which came to be dismissed. A challenge to the same in a Revision Petition in R.P.No.43/2021 also came

¶52

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3263 WP No. 106826 of 2023

¶53

to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner on 08.02.2022. It is challenging these orders that the petitioners are before this Court.

¶54

In the present matter, having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having perused the documents, it is clearly seen that, it is in the year 1997 that the entry of the name of the Government with the endorsement that ‘the property is reserved for public purposes’ was made in the RTCs. The appeal under subsection (2) of Section 136 of the Act of 1964 was filed in the year 2021, after a lapse of nearly 24 years, by which time, the property had already been put to use for public purposes.

¶55

On enquiry with the learned counsel for the petitioners, if there are any documents which are available as regards the petitioners and/or Respondent No.6 having cultivated the land and/or paid the taxes, she submits that no such documents

¶56

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3263 WP No. 106826 of 2023

¶57

have been produced, only the RTCs have been produced.

¶58

When there is no document which has been placed on record by the petitioners that they have exercised ownership rights from 1997 to 2021 and there is no reasonable cause for delay which has been established by them in the proceedings under Subsection (2) of Section 136 of the Act of 1964, I am of the considered opinion that, after a lapse of nearly 24 years, the delay has rightly been refused to be condoned by the Assistant Commissioner and which order has been confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.

¶59

No grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed.

¶60

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶61

gab CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2

Rachayya S/O Gangayya Aliyas Gangadharaswami Karimani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachayya S/O Gangayya Aliyas Gangadharaswami Karimani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Acciona Agua S a Vs Bangalore Water Supply and

Chandru Ganapu Gouda S/O Ganapu Gouda Vs State of Karnataka

Mamajigani W/O Mahammadrasur Shiggav D/O Husensab Dalal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sneha W/O Ravindra Kadam Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Fakirappa Siddappa Halagatti, Vs Smt. Siddavva D/O. Lakshappa Halagatti Since Deceased by Her Lrs Respondent NO.2 to 4 and 6

Sri. Mohan S/O Narayan Hegde Vs the State of Karnataka