SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 7582

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.S.HEMALEKHA
SHRI. SHIVAPUTRAPPA BASAVANNEPPA PYATI – Appellant
Versus
THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WP 100112/2025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 100112 OF 2025 (LR)

BETWEEN:

SHRI. SHIVAPUTRAPPA BASAVANNEPPA PYATI, AGE. 87 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BACHANKERI, BAILAHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 102.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, NEAR COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590 001.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILAHONGAL, BAILAHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 102.

3. THE TAHASHILDAR, BAILAHONGAL, GIRIJA A. BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 102.

BYAHATTI …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA)

Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 Date: 2026.02.20 11:36:20 +0530 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO MAKE NECESSARY CORRECTION IN THE ORDER DATED 02.04.2016 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 DATED 02.04.2016 BEARING NO.KLR/77A/SR- 02/99/BACHANKERI VIDE ANNEXURE-A WHEREIN, THE SY.NO.OF THE PETITION PROPERTY IS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS SY.NO.96/6 INSTEAD OF SY.NO.94/6; ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ENTER THE NAME OF PETITIONER IN SY.NO.94/6 (WRONGLY MENTIONED AS 96/6) WHICH IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 28 GUNTHAS SITUATED AT BACHANKERI, TAL. BAILHONGAL; AND ETC.

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

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

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner, aged about 87 years and an agriculturist by occupation, has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus to correct a clerical error in the order dated 02.04.2016 bearing No.KLR 77A/SR-02/99/Bachankeri (Annexure-A), wherein the survey number of the granted land has been erroneously mentioned as Survey No.96/6 instead of Survey No.94/6, and for a consequential direction to enter his name in the revenue records in respect of Survey No.94/6 measuring 28 guntas situated at Bachankeri Village, Bailhongal Taluk, Belagavi District.

2. Brief facts of the case:

2.1. The petitioner had filed an application in Form No.7A seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of agricultural land measuring 28 guntas situated at Bachankeri Village, Bailhongal Taluk in Survey No.94/6.

2.2. Pursuant to the said application, the competent authority conducted an enquiry and a spot inspection was carried out on 28.05.2012, and the inspection report specifically referred to Survey No.94/6.

2.3. The Village Accountant submitted a report confirming the inspection of Survey No.94/6. Thereafter, the Revenue Inspector, Kittur, by recommendation dated 31.05.2012 (Annexure - E), recommended grant of land in favour of the petitioner after verifying mutation entries and other relevant records in respect of Survey No.94/6.

2.4. It is stated that, while passing the order dated

02.04.2016, the survey number was erroneously mentioned as 96/6 instead of 94/6. It is further stated that Survey No.96/6 is not in existence and that there are no mutation entries pertaining to the said survey number.

2.5. Despite submitting a representation dated

16.07.2021 seeking correction of the clerical error, no action has been taken by the respondents, compelling the petitioner to approach this Court in this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire enquiry proceedings, including the spot inspection and recommendation, were conducted only in respect of Survey No.94/6 and not Survey No.96/6. By drawing attention of this Court to Annexure-E, it is contended that the competent authority verified and recommended grant of Survey No.94/6, and the mention of Survey No.96/6 in the order dated 02.04.2016 is a bona fide clerical and typographical error, as survey No.96/6 is not in existence and there are no mutation records pertaining to the said survey number.

4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate has filed an affidavit on behalf

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top