Maradi Sannakanimavva Vs State of Karnataka

M. MARIKANIMAVVA @ LAXMIDEVI D/O. LATE HOSURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O. NO. 45, 8^TH CROSS, G.S.NAGAR, SARASWATHI PURAM, NANDINI LAYOUT, BANGALORE.

¶10

E

¶11

Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.02 10:37:15 +0530

¶12

M. BASAVARAJ S/O. LATE DODDAKANIMAVVA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O. NO. 17/35 WARD, UPPINAKERE, HOSPET, DIST: BELLARY.

¶13

&PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SMT. V.VIDYA IYER, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC-D:391 WP No. 105510 of 2014

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE, R/BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.

¶21

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶22

BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY.

¶23

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER REVENUE SUB DIVISION, HOSPET.

¶24

TAHSILDAR

¶25

HOSPET TALUK, HOSPET.

¶26

CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL HOSPET, R/BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶27

&RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED)

¶29

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICE FOUND AT ANNEXURE-Z DATED 20.03.2014 IN NO.KUM/AKRA/35/2013-14 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ETC.

¶30

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 8B9 GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶31

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

¶32

3 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC-D:391 WP No. 105510 of 2014

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

The petitioners have approached this Court calling in question the impugned notice dated 20.03.2014 [AnnexureZ] issued by the Tahsildar, Hospet Taluk/ respondent No.4 and seeking consequential reliefs.

¶37

2. Brief facts ;

¶38

The petitioners claim ownership and possession over

¶39

the land bearing Sy.No.79/B measuring 62 cents, situated at Mudlapur village, Hospet Taluk. The said land originally belongs to their predecessor in interest, late Maradi Hosurappa, and the petitioner continued in possession after his demise.

¶40

On basis of a report submitted by the Revenue

¶41

Inspector, a mutation entry came to be effected, deleting the name of late Maradi Hosurappa and entering the land as

¶42

8Government Land9, without issuing notice to the petitioner.

¶43

Being aggrieved, the petitioner earlier approached this Court in WP No.60582/2012, wherein this Court by order

¶44

4 -

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC-D:391 WP No. 105510 of 2014

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

dated 16.07.2012 [Annexure-Y], set aside the mutation on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and directed the Tahsildar to reconsider the matter after affording an opportunity of hearing.

¶48

While the said proceedings were still pending and without passing any final order as directed by this Court, the Tahsildar issued the impugned notice dated 20.03.2014 [Annexure-Z] invoking proceedings under Section 192(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short 8Act9] treating the petitioners as unauthorised occupants. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the issuance of the impugned notice is ex-facie illegal, being contrary and an indirect violation of the earlier order of this Court at Annexure-Y. It is submitted that without concluding the mutation proceedings as directed, the respondents could not have initiated eviction proceedings.

¶49

Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate seeks to justify the action of the Tahsildar.

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC-D:391 WP No. 105510 of 2014

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

This Court has carefully considered the

¶54

contentions urged and perused the material on record.

¶55

Having considered the material on record and rival submissions, this Court finds that the issue is no longer a res integra . In WP No.60582/2012, this Court had specifically set aside the mutation entry and directed respondent No.4 to consider the matter afresh after granting opportunity to the petitioners. Admittedly, no final order has been passed in compliance with the said direction. In that view of the matter, issuance of the impugned notice at Annexure-Z initiating proceedings by treating the petitioners as an unauthorised occupant is premature, without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. The action of respondent No.4 is clearly contrary to the directions issued by this Court and cannot be permitted to stand. Accordingly, this Court pass the following;

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i) The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶58

6 -

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC-D:391 WP No. 105510 of 2014

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

ii) The impugned notice dated

¶62

20.03.2014 at Annexure-Z is hereby quashed in terms of the order passed by this Court at Annexure-Y.

¶63

iii) Respondent No.4/ Tahsildar, Hospete Taluk, is directed to conclude the proceeding pursuant to Annexure-Y strictly in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of [3] three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶64

iv) All the contentions of the parties are kept open to be urged before the competent authority.

¶65

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶66

PJ/ Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 72

Maradi Sannakanimavva v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maradi Sannakanimavva v. 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Laxmi Vs Technical

Smt Godavari W/O. Virupakshi Baat Vs Siddu Savadi

Smt. v S Kakoli Vs the Director

Smt Girijamma D/O Mallappa Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Ubedulla S/O Abdulmajeed Mulla Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi District.

M/S Ghodawat Fresheners LLP Vs Union of India