Sri. Shivanna Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri. Shivanna Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition disposed of (not entertained on merits) with a direction to respondent No.4, the Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluk, to decide the petitioners' representation within eight weeks, taking the third-party claim into account and without prejudicing third-party rights.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Tahsildar (respondent No.4) should be directed to decide the petitioners' representation for effecting RTC entry in favour of the Government in respect of 5 acres of Survey No.40, Gantaganahalli Village, pursuant to the order dated 09.02.1988. +1 more

Court's answer

Without going into any other aspects of the merit of the subject matter, the Court disposed of the petition by requiring respondent No.4, the Tahsildar, to decide the petitioners' representation within eight weeks.

Ratio / Principle

The third-party claim of Chikkaiah S/o Balaiah (communication dated 02.03.1988, Annexure-A) may be taken into consideration by the competent authority while deciding the representation, and the direction shall not preclude third parties interested in the land from agitating their rights in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

The Court expressly made clear that it had not gone into the merits of the subject matter of the petition.obiter¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public interest writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Rule 14(1) of the High Court of Karnataka PIL Rules, 2018, by two villagers of Gantaganahalli Village (Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru District) seeking a writ of mandamus to the Tahsildar to implement his order dated 09.02.1988 in H.T.R.D.C.B.5/1987-88 (Annexure-A) by incorporating the name of the 'Government' for 5 acres out of 29 acres 21 gunthas in Survey No.40 in column nos. 9 and 12(2) of the RTC, pursuant to their representation dated 18.04.2024. Without going into the merits, the Court disposed of the petition by directing respondent No.4, the Tahsildar, to decide the pending representation within eight weeks. Noting that a communication dated 02.03.1988 reflects a third-party ownership claim by Chikkaiah S/o Balaiah, the Court directed that this aspect be considered by the competent authority and clarified that the order shall not come in the way of any third parties agitating their rights in accordance with law; the Court expressly did not examine the merits.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:762-DB WP No. 22676 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO. 22676 OF 2024 (KLR-RES-PIL)

BETWEEN:

SRI SHIVANNA

S/O BALAIAH

AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

RESIDING AT GANTAGANAHALLI VILLAGE

HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 126.

SRI SHIVARAJ S/O LATE RAMLINGAIAH

Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: High Court of Karnataka

AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

RESIDING AT GANTAGANAHALLI VILLAGE

HUTHRIDURGA HOBLI

KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 126.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI PUNITH C., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:762-DB WP No. 22676 of 2024

REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU-560 001.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT-572 101.

THE TAHSILDAR KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 130.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH RULE 14(1) OF 'THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION RULES, 2018 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 4^TH RESPONDENT TO IMPLEMENT HIS ORDER DATED 09.02.1988 IN H.T.R.D.C.B.5/1987-88 AS PER ANNEXURE-A BY INCORPORATING THE NAME OF THE "GOVERNMENT" TO AN EXTENT OF 5 ACRE OUT OF TOTAL EXTENT 29 ACRE 21 GUNTAS IN COLUMN NOS.9 AND 12(2) OF THE RTC IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.40, SITUATED AT GANTAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, HUTHRI DURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT BY CONSIDERING

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:762-DB WP No. 22676 of 2024

THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 18.04.2024 AS PER ANNEXURES-D1 TO D4, ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)

The only prayer for consideration in this public interest petition is that in respect of 5 acres of land in Survey No.40 situated at Gantaganahalli Village, Huthridurga Hobli, Kunigal Taluka of Tumkur District, according to the petitioners who are the villagers, RTC entry is to be effected in favour of the Government and that, there is already a mutation.

In this regard, it was submitted by learned advocate Mr. C. Punith for the petitioners that a representation is already pending before respondent No.4-the Competent Authority, the Tahsildar, Kunigal Taluka, Tumakuru District. Learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar fairly submitted that the

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:762-DB WP No. 22676 of 2024

representation of the petitioners shall be considered in accordance with law within the time limit which may be provided by the Court.

In the aforesaid view, without going into any other aspects of the merit of the subject matter, the petition is disposed of by requiring respondent No.4-the Tahsildar to decide the representation of the petitioners within eight weeks from today.

At this stage, learned Additional Government Advocate invites the attention of the Court to the Communication dated 02.03.1988 at Annexure-A, the contents of which reflects that a third party namely, Chikkaiah S/o Balaiah has staked his claim in respect of the subject matter of land to describe his ownership.

This aspect may be taken into consideration by the Competent Authority while deciding the representation. It is also clarified that this order by which the Competent Authority is required to decide the representation of the petitioners shall not come in the way for any third parties who may have interest in the land to agitate their rights in accordance with law.

Subject to the above limited observations, the petition is not entertained. It is accordingly disposed of.

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:762-DB WP No. 22676 of 2024

It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of

the subject matter of this petition.

SD/(N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/-

(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

hkh. List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6