Dismissed¶46

Sri Hanumanthappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025WP/11172/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed; khata/mutation entry; Sy.No.63, 1 acre 3 guntas, Thippapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, Bengaluru Rural; revision RP No.57/2014-15 order dated 22.03.2017 by Deputy Commissioner upheld in effect; writ under Articles 226/227 Constitution of India; dismissal due to pendency of title suit O.S No.103/2019 (declaration and injunction) before Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura; liberty to parties to litigate before Civil Court; contentions left open; High Court of Karnataka, Rajesh Rai K, J., 12.11.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:46015.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed. Petitioner and respondent No.6 granted liberty to urge all contentions before the Civil Court in O.S No.103/2019; all contentions left open. ¶46

Sri Hanumanthappa Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioner; writ petition dismissed. Petitioner and respondent No.6 granted liberty to urge all contentions before the Civil Court in O.S No.103/2019; all contentions left open.

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned order dated 22.03.2017 in Revision Petition No.57/2014-15 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, directing respondent No.3-Tahsildar to register khata of Sy.No.63 in favour of respondent No.4, should be quashed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. +2 more

¶27

Ratio / Principle

The Court held that the petitioner's prayer cannot be granted in view of the pendency of the original suit O.S No.103/2019; accordingly the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶46

Key takeaways

The petitioner and respondent No.6 are at liberty to urge all their contentions before the Civil Court in O.S No.103/2019, and all contentions of the parties are left open.ratio¶47
The Court observed that the petitioner's assertion of being in absolute possession and enjoyment of the subject land with khata standing in his name is not supported by any documents.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Rajesh Rai K, J., Oral Order dated 12.11.2025) in W.P. No.11172/2018 (KLR-RR/SUR) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India: Petitioner Hanumanthappa challenged the order dated 22.03.2017 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner in RP No.57/2014-15, whereby the Tahsildar, Doddaballapur Taluk, was directed to effect mutation/khata of land bearing Sy.No.63 measuring 1 acre 03 guntas, Thippapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk, in the name of respondent No.4. The petitioner claimed to be absolute owner in possession, cultivating Ragi and Maize for 45 years, but the Court noted his claim of possession and khata was unsupported by documents. Holding that the writ prayer could not be granted in view of the pendency of the declaratory and injunction suit O.S No.103/2019 before the Senior Civil Judge, Doddaballapura, between the petitioner and respondent No.4, the Court dismissed the writ petition as lacking merit, leaving the petitioner and impleaded respondent No.6 (added by amendment order dated 12.11.2025) at liberty to urge all contentions before the Civil Court; all contentions left open. No costs or quantum awarded; no precedent discussed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46015 WP No. 11172 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 11172 OF 2018 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI HANUMANTHAPPA, S/O. LATE. CHIKKANNAPPA ALIAS CHIKKANNA, AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT THIPPAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLALPUR TALUK-561 203, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, CELL NO. 84949 80320

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI KHADRI S A, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, VISHWESHRAIAH TOWER, VIDHANAVEEDHI ROAD, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR-561 203.

¶16

THE TAHASILDAR, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, DODDABALLAPUR-561 203.

¶17

SRI MUTHAPPA, S/O. LATE HANUMAIAH,

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:46015 WP No. 11172 of 2018

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST.

¶22

SRI H RAJANNA, S/O. HANUMANTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶23

RESPONDENT NO.4 & 5 R/AT THIPPAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK 561 203. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶24

T.R VENKATESH,

¶25

S/O DODDARANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/OF THIPPAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2025.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI NEELAKANTAPPA K PUJAR, HCGP FOR R-1-3 [PH]; SRI H.V MANJUNATHA, ADVOCATE FOR R-4 [PH]; SMT. J KALADEEPA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI G.S PATEEL, ADVOCATE FOR R-6/IMPLEADING APPLICANT [PH] V/O DATED 12.11.2025)

¶27

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY R-1 AT ANNEXURE-A, ON 22.03.2017, PASSED IN REVISION PETITION NO.57/2014-15, DIRECTING THE R-3 TO REGISTER THE KHATHA IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE PROPERTY, IN TO THE NAME OF R-4 IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY.NO.63, MEASURING 1 ACRE 3 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT THIPPAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK ETC.

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC:46015 WP No. 11172 of 2018

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶33

ORAL ORDER

¶34

In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order passed in RP.No.57/2014-15 dated 22.03.2017 by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, whereby respondent No.1 directed respondent No.3-Tahsildar to effect mutation/khata of land bearing Sy.No.63 measuring 1 acre 03 guntas situated at Thippapura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur Taluk (hereinafter referred to as 'subject land') in the name of respondent No.4.

¶35

The grievance of the petitioner is that he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the subject land and he was growing Ragi and Maize crops in the said property since 45 years. In pursuance of the impugned order passed by respondent No.1, respondent No.4 is making an attempt to dispossess the petitioner and also to alienate the subject land. Hence, he filed this writ petition.

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:46015 WP No. 11172 of 2018

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

It is contended by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the petitioner was not a party before the Deputy Commissioner. The subject land was belonging to one Muthappa and he was in possession of the said land and later, khata of the said property was mutated in the name of respondent No.5 in IHC.No.48/9495 and MR.No.7/1998-99. Against which, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. However, the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.02.2014. Against the said order, respondent No.5 filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision petition. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner, who is a total stranger in respect of the subject land.

¶40

Learned counsel for the respondents produced copy of the plaint which depicts that the petitioner filed a suit against respondent No.4 in OS.No.103/2019 before the Senior Civil Judge at Doddaballapura for the relief of declaration and consequential injunction in respect of the subject land. Further, the contention of the petitioner that

¶41

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46015 WP No. 11172 of 2018

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the subject land and khata stands in his name is not supported by any documents.

¶44

Respondent No.6 contends that he is also

¶45

having right over the subject land and he was not arrayed as party before the Deputy Commissioner.

¶46

Under such circumstances, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted in view of the pendency of the original suit in O.S No.103/2019. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed .

¶47

However, the petitioner and respondent No.6 are at liberty to urge all his contention before the Civil Court in OS.No.103/2019.

¶48

All contentions of the parties are left open.

¶49

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶50

NR/-,

¶51

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri Hanumanthappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Hanumanthappa v. the Deputy Commissioner

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

Mr Abraham Cutinho Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Chidananda Vs Mr. T. S. Govindaraju

K H Udayakumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Praveena Vs N Laxmana Gowda

Sri Chikkaputtanna Vs Government of Karnataka

Sri. Nagesh Vs the Deputy Commissioner