Disposed¶69

Moulasab S/O Modinsab Khanammanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Jan 2026WP/100027/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mandamus; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Karnataka land revenue records correction; Tahasildar Kundgol; violation of principles of natural justice; writ of certiorari; remand for fresh consideration; non-consideration of representation/application; notice dated 03.11.2025 in No.BHUMI/VAHI/2025 Annexure-F; four-week time-bound direction; status quo of revenue-record entries; W.P.No.107307 of 2015 order dated 21.08.2024; NC: 2026:KHC-D:55; KLR-RR/SUR; private respondents 3 to 11 of Yelival village, Kundgol.

What did the court decide?

Respondent-Authority (Tahasildar, Kundgol) directed to consider the petitioner's representation/application in accordance with law within four weeks from receipt of certified copy of the order; parties to maintain status quo as to revenue-record entries till such consideration. ¶69

Moulasab S/O Modinsab Khanammanavar Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 (Tahasildar, Kundgol) should be directed by mandamus to proceed further and pass orders in accordance with law on the petitioner's representation/application based on the notice dated 03.11.2025, in view of the non-consideration despite the remand order in W.P.No.107307/2015. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

The respondent-Authority (Tahasildar) is directed to consider the petitioner's representation/application in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶73

Ratio / Principle

Till such consideration, the parties shall maintain status quo as to the entries in the revenue records.

¶74

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of at the preliminary stage itself, without issuance of notice to respondent Nos.3 to 11 (private individuals).obiter¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench (K.S. Hemalekha, J.) [NC: 2026:KHC-D:55] — Writ Petition No.100027 of 2026 (KLR-RR/SUR), decided 06.01.2026 — Mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — Petitioner sought a direction to the Tahasildar, Kundgol to act on the notice dated 03.11.2025 in No.BHUMI/VAHI/2025 (Annexure-F) and pass orders on his representation for correction of revenue-record entries, which had remained unconsidered despite the earlier remand: in W.P.No.107307/2015 this Court had quashed the Tahsildar's order dated 26.03.2015 as violative of natural justice (order dated 21.08.2024); post-remand notice was issued, documents were produced, but no order followed. Disposing of the petition at the preliminary stage without notice to private respondent Nos.3 to 11, the Court directed the respondent-Authority to consider the representation/application in accordance with law within four weeks of receipt of certified copy of the order, and directed the parties to maintain status quo as to the revenue-record entries till such consideration.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:55 WP No. 100027 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.100027 OF 2026 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MOULASAB S/O. MODINSAB KHANAMMANAVAR AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: NIL, R/O. HANCHINAL VILLAGE, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD-581113.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. SADIQ N.GOODWALA, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.

¶16

MANJANNA E

¶17

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.08 11:13:40 +0530

¶18

THE TAHSILDAR KUNDGOL-581113, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶19

RAJBI W/O. MOULASAB SHETSANADI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶20

FATOBI W/O. HASANSAB KHANAMMANAVAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶21

IMAMSAB

¶22

S/O. HASANSAB KHANAMMANAVAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶23

MAHABUBI

¶24

¶25

NC: 2026:KHC-D:55 WP No. 100027 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

D/O. HASANSAB KHANAMMANAVAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶28

BEGUMBI D/O. HASANSAB KHANAMMANAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶29

DASTGIRSAB S/O. HUSSAINSAB KHANAMMANAVAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶30

9. NABISAB

¶31

S/O. HUSSSIANSAB KHANAMMANAVAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶32

BUDESAB

¶33

S/O. HUSSAINSAB KHANAMMANAVAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE.

¶34

11. SHARIFSAB

¶35

S/O. MODENSAB KHANAMMANAVAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶36

RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 11 ARE R/O: YELIVAL VILLAGE, TQ: KUNDGOL, DIST: DHARWAD – 581113.

¶37

…RESPONDENTS

¶38

(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶39

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO PROCEED FURTHER AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BASED ON THE NOTICE DATED 03.11.2025 IN NO.BHUMI/VAHI/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶40

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

¶41

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC-D:55 WP No. 100027 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

ORAL ORDER

¶46

The writ petition is disposed of at the preliminary stage itself, without issuance of notice to respondents No.3 to 11 private individuals.

¶47

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶48

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.107307 of 2015, calling in question the order dated 26.03.2015 passed by the Tahasildar/respondent No.2, on the ground that the said order was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. This Court, vide order dated 21.08.2024 disposed of the writ petition, which reads as under:

¶49

“5. Suffice it to note that the petitioner was the respondent before the Tahsildar. A perusal of the order of the Tahsildar reveals that notice was not issued to the petitioner. The Tahsildar proceeded further in the matter and concludes that the petitioner was not in village and hence notice was not issued to him. This is unsustainable in law. The order passed by the Tahsildar is in violation of principles of natural justice. In my view, an opportunity of being heard should have been accorded to the petitioner. Therefore, the order

¶50

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC-D:55 WP No. 100027 of 2026

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

passed by the Tahsildar is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-aside.

¶54

The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 26.03.2015 passed by the Tahsildar, Kundagol in � � ��/2013-14 vide Annexure-D is quashed.”

¶55

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶56

pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner submitted a

¶57

representation seeking correction of entries in the revenue

¶58

records. In furtherance thereof, respondent No.2 on 03.11.2025, issued a notice calling upon the petitioner to produce the relevant documents, pursuant to which, the petitioner has duly complied with. However, despite the same, respondent No.2 has not passed any order on the said application/representation. Hence, the grievance of the petitioner is non-consideration of the representation not with standing the remand order passed by this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the earlier proceedings in W.P.No.107307/2015, this Court, while entertaining the writ petition, had granted an interim order protecting the possession and the existing entries in

¶59

¶60

NC: 2026:KHC-D:55 WP No. 100027 of 2026

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

revenue records and which continued to operate till disposal of the writ petition.

¶63

Learned Additional Government Advocate

¶64

appearing for the respondent/State submits that the representation is under consideration and that respondent No.2 has already called upon the petitioner to produce the documents necessary for adjudication. It is submitted that respondent No.2 will consider the application/ representation in accordance with law within a reasonable time-bound manner.

¶65

Having regard to the submissions made by both sides, and the matter being remitted by this Court to the Tahasildar for fresh consideration in accordance with law,

¶66

this Court deems it appropriate to issue necessary direction.

¶67

Accordingly, the following:

¶68

ORDER

¶69

i. The Writ petition is disposed of.

¶70

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC-D:55 WP No. 100027 of 2026

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

ii. The respondent-Authority is directed to consider the representation/application in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶74

iii. Till such consideration, the parties shall maintain status quo as to the entries in the revenue records.

¶75

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶76

AM/Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 24

Moulasab S/O Modinsab Khanammanavar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moulasab S/O Modinsab Khanammanavar 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

Sri Kolachalam Vishwa Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

Guddappa Vs the President

Shri.Subhash Vs Smt.Kalavati

Sharad S/O. Balasaheb Jangate Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Ramesh Kumar S/O. Panna Lal Vs the State of Karnataka

Saroja W/O Mallikarjun Morabad Vs the State of Karnataka