2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 7708
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
DYMANNA S/O LATE GADEPPA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WP 106908/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 106908 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. DYMANNA, S/O LATE GADEPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC:AGRICULTURE, R/O KARATAGI, DIST KOPPAL - 583231.
2. BASANNA, S/O LATE GADEPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O KARATAGI, DIST KOPPAL.
3. YAMANAVVA, W/O LATE AYYAPPA, AGE ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O KARATAGI, DIST KOPPAL - 583231.
Digitally signed by
4. DYAMAVVA W/O LATE KALLAPPA PRAMILA G V AGE ABOUT 58 YEARS Location:
OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O KARATAGI HIGH COURT DIST KOPPAL 583231.
OF KARNATAKA
5. HANAMAVVA, W/O LATE KUPENDRA, AGE ABOUT44 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O KARATAGI, DIST KOPPAL - 583231.
…PETITIONERS (BY SRI VENKAT RAO N DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI ARAVIND D KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 01.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, KOPPAL - 583 231.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SUB DIVISION KOPPAL - 583 231.
4. REVENUE INSPECTOR, KARATAGI, DIST KOPPAL 583 231.
5. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, KARATAGI, DIST KOPPAL 583 231.
6. VEERAPANNA, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, AGE MAJOR, OCCAGRICULTURE R/O KARATAGI DISTRICT KOPPAL - 583 231.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SADIQ N GOODWALA, ADVOCATE FOR R6, SRI/SMT MALA BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.KAM/ APPEAL/73/2022-23/2154 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 27/07/2023 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-C AND ALSO ORDER NO.RRT.KAM.APPEAL.201/2021-22 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 28/10/2022, WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT RESPONDENTS TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN THE CONCERNED REVENUE RECORDS FOR THE SY.NO.187/*/* SITUATED IN KARATGI VILLAGE KARATGI TALUK, DIST.KOPPAL IN SO FAR AS 1 ACRES 20 GUNTAS IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE)
The petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 136(3) and 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 respectively.
2. The dispute is pertaining to 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Survey Nos.187/3 and 187/4 of Karatgi Village, Taluk: Karatgi, District:Koppal. The petitioners' contention is that their father purchased the property referred to above under registered sale deed dated 30.12.1967 from the previous owner namely Rangappa son of Hanumappa. The remaining extent of the land remained with the original owner.
3. It is the allegation that respondent No.1, who is the son of original vendor, without notice to the petitioners or the petitioners' father, got the name entered in the property records covered by the aforementioned registered sale deed and petitioners were not aware of the aforementioned entry relating to the property referred to above. Once the petitioners came to know about the illegal entry which according to them is certified without notice to the petitioners or their father, approached the Assistant Commissioner by filing an appeal against the certification of the mutation entry.
4. The appeal was dismissed in terms of the order dated
28.10.2022, which is marked at Annexure-B. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order filed a Revision Petition before the Deputy Commissioner and in terms of the order dated 27.07.2023 which is marked at Annexure-C said Revision Petition is also dismissed. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would urge that the Assistant Commissioner erred in dismissing the appeal on the premise that the issue relating to