Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Nagaveni Vs Deputy Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Nagaveni Vs Deputy CommissionerNagaveni v. Deputy Commissioner

Dismissed¶35

Nagaveni v. Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC2 Apr 2025WP/200721/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench; writ petition dismissed; petitioners denied filing writ petition and denied signatures on Vakalath and affidavits; verifying affidavit requirement; Articles 226/227 Constitution of India; certiorari and mandamus; ROR (record of rights) correction; removal of word 'BRIDGE' from Column Nos.9 and 12; Sy.No.179/2/1, Hosalli-E, Sindhanur, Raichur; endorsement dated 07.02.2025; Annexure-H; File No.REV/RRT/SA/SIM/73/2024-25; Assistant Commissioner Lingasugur; Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha.

What did the court decide?

Since the rules require a writ petition to be filed with a verifying affidavit, and the first petitioner states she neither gave any Vakalath nor instructions to file the writ petition and did not sign the Vakalath or any affidavits, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition was validly instituted by the named petitioners, given that Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Court and stated that the petition was not filed by them, that they never signed any Vakalath or affidavits, and that they had not engaged or instructed the counsel on record.

Ratio / Principle

Since the rules require a writ petition to be filed with a verifying affidavit, and the first petitioner states she neither gave any Vakalath nor instructions to file the writ petition and did not sign the Vakalath or any affidavits, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India (WP No.200721 of 2025, KLR-RR/SUR), Kalaburagi Bench, decided 02.04.2025 by Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha. The petition sought certiorari to quash an endorsement dated 07.02.2025 (Annexure-H, File No.REV/RRT/SA/SIM/73/2024-25) issued by Respondent No.2 (Assistant Commissioner, Lingasugur) regarding Sy.No.179/2/1 of Hosalli-E, Tq. Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur, and mandamus to correct the ROR by removing the word 'BRIDGE' from Columns 9 and 12. On preliminary hearing, Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 appeared in person and reported that the writ petition was not filed by them, that they never signed any Vakalath or affidavits, and that they had not engaged or instructed the counsel on record, who did not appear; Petitioner No.3 was absent due to heart ailment. Holding that the rules require a writ petition to be filed with a verifying affidavit and that the first petitioner denied giving any Vakalath or instructions, the Court held the petition liable to be dismissed and dismissed it.

A

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2101 WP No. 200721 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

KALABURAGI BENCH

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA WRIT PETITION NO.200721 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

NAGAVENI W/O P. SRINIVAS, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSALLI EJ, TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR, NOW AT HMT LAYOUT, 770-158 MAIN HMT LAYOUT, MATHIKERE NORTH PO MSRIT, VTC, BANGALORE – 560 054.

Digitally signed by VARSHA N RASALKAR Location: High Court Of Karnataka

BHAGYALAXMI D/O. ANANTRAO KULKARNI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: HOSALLI EJ, TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR.

SATYANARAYANA S/O. ANANTRAO KULKARNI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: HOSALLI EJ, TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. MILINDKUMAR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. DASTAGIR B. NADAF, ADVOCATE)

AND:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 101.

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2101 WP No. 200721 of 2025

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, LINGASUGUR, TQ: LINGASUGUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 122.

THE TAHSILDAR, SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 128.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 07.02.2025 AS PER ANNEXURE-H IN FILE NO.REV/RRT/SA/SIM/73/2024-25 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RESPECT OF SY.NO.179/2/1 OF HOSALLI-E, TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR, AND ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CORRECT THE ROR OF THE PETITIONERS AND ISSUE FRESH ROR THEREBY ENTERING THE NAME OF PETITIONERS BY REMOVING WORD “BRIDGE” FROM COLUMN NO:9 AND 12 OF THE ROR OF SY.NO.179/2/1 MEASURING 3 ACRE 9 GUNTAS OF VILLAGE HOSALLI-E, TQ: SINDHANUR, DIST: RAICHUR TILL THE DISPOSAL OF ABOVE SUIT IN ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA)

Petitioner No.1–Nagaveni appears before this Court

in person. On a query posed by this Court with regard to

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2101 WP No. 200721 of 2025

her identify, she has shown her aadhar card. Petitioner No.2–Bhagyalaxmi also appears before this Court physically. However, she has not produced any proof of identify. Both of them report that petitioner No.3 could not appear before this Court as he is suffering from heart ailment. They also say that this writ petition is not filed by them and that they never signed in any Vakalath. They submits that they have not engaged Sri Dastagirsaheb B.Nadaf as their counsel and he did not given any instructions to file this writ petition. Learned counsel did not make his appearance.

Learned Additional Government Advocate Sri Mallikarjun Sahukar submits that as the writ petition is a frivolous one, the same is liable to be dismissed.

When the Vakalath which is on the file of this

Court is shown, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 reported that the signatures appearing on the Vakalath does not pertain to them and they did not sign in any Vakalath and equally petitioner No.3 did not sign.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:2101 WP No. 200721 of 2025

At this stage, Sri Milindkumar, Advocate appears and submits that he was instructed by Sri Dastagirsaheb B.Nadaf to take adjournment. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 states that they came of the way from Bengaluru to state before this Court that they have not filed any writ petition.

Having considered the submission thus made and as the rules require the writ petition being filed with verifying affidavit and as the first petitioner states that she neither gave any Vakalath nor instructions to file the writ petition and equally did not sign either in the Vakalath or in any affidavits, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Thus, the writ petition is dismissed.

Sd/(Dr.CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA) JUDGE

SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79 CT:NI

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the writ petition was validly instituted by the named petitioners, given that Petitioners Nos.1 and 2 appeared before the Court and stated that the petition was not filed by them, that they never signed any Vakalath or affidavits, and that they had not engaged or instructed the counsel on record.medium confidence¶28

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227¶21

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Endorsement dated 07.02.2025 as per Annexure-H in File No.REV/RRT/SA/SIM/73/2024-25 issued by Respondent No.2 (Assistant Commissioner, Lingasugur) in respect of Sy.No.179/2/1 of Hosalli-E, Tq. Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur, challenged via prayer for writ of certiorari.¶21
Assistant Commissioner, Lingasugur (Respondent No.2) · 07.02.2025
Prior proceeding
The prayer seeks correction of the ROR of Sy.No.179/2/1 until the disposal of an existing suit ('the above suit'); no particulars of that suit are stated in the judgment.¶21

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Nagaveni W/o P. Srinivas¶8
Milindkumar, Dastagir B. Nadaf
petitioner
Bhagyalaxmi D/o. Anantrao Kulkarni¶10
Milindkumar, Dastagir B. Nadaf
petitioner
Satyanarayana S/o. Anantrao Kulkarni¶11
Milindkumar, Dastagir B. Nadaf
respondent
Deputy Commissioner, Raichur¶15
Mallikarjun Sahukar
respondent
The Assistant Commissioner, Lingasugur¶17
Mallikarjun Sahukar
respondent
The Tahsildar, Sindhanur¶18
Mallikarjun Sahukar

Coram

AI extract

Hon'ble Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalathaauthor¶24

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 2 Apr 2025 · April
Registered: 12 Mar 2025
Case no.: WP/200721/2025
CNR: KAHC030030862025
Topic: Writ and Judicial Review
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Writ Petition (KLR-RR/SUR)

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from Chillakur Sumalatha

Darshrath Vs Returning Officer and Ors.
1 Apr 2025
Sri Venkateshwara Super Market Vs Asst. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes and Ors.
1 Apr 2025
Maheboob Vs the Karnataka State Board Aukaf Bangalore and Anr.
1 Apr 2025
Parvati Nurandappa Sahukar Vs State of Karnataka
2 Apr 2025
M Earanna Vs Iqbal Hussain
2 Apr 2025
Nandamma Vs State of Karnataka
2 Apr 2025

Cite this judgement

Nagaveni v. Deputy Commissioner, WP/200721/2025 (KA), decided on 2 April 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Constitution of IndiaArticles 226 and 227

View all statutes

Procedural history2

Endorsement dated 07.02.2025 as per Annexure-H in File No.REV/RRT/SA/SIM/73/2024-25 issued by Respondent No.2 (Assistant Commissioner, Lingasugur) in respect of Sy.No.179/2/1 of Hosalli-E, Tq. Sindhanur, Dist: Raichur, challenged via prayer for writ of certiorari.Assistant Commissioner, Lingasugur (Respondent No.2) · 07.02.2025
The prayer seeks correction of the ROR of Sy.No.179/2/1 until the disposal of an existing suit ('the above suit'); no particulars of that suit are stated in the judgment.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Hon'ble Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha

Parties & counsel