Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 11529
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
Jyoti M, J
SMT SHANTAVVA @ SHANTABAI – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WP No. 107826 of 2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: M.C. Hukkeri
For the Respondents: Mala B. Bhute
A person who is not an aggrieved party and was not a party to the original proceedings lacks the locus standi to challenge an administrative order, and any such challenge entertained by a higher authority is liable to be quashed.
Headnote:The petition involves the Karnataka Land Revenue Act regarding the entry of names in the record of rights. The husband of the first petitioner purchased land via a registered sale deed, which was approved by the Tahsildar and subsequently upheld by the Assistant Commissioner. However, the Deputy Commissioner set aside these orders based on a challenge by parties who were not original parties to the proceedings. The court found that the parties challenging the order lacked the necessary legal standing. The primary issue is whether third parties, who were not parties to the original proceedings and not aggrieved, have the locus standi to challenge an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The court reasoned that since the original seller had already transferred the property, she had no interest, and the subsequent challengers were not aggrieved parties, thus violating the principle of locus standi. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of land purchase and revenue appeals. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions regarding ownership and locus standi. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. determination that challengers lacked legal standing. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. quashing of dc order and allowing petition. (Para 8 , 9) |
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.M.C.Hukkeri, counsel for the petitioners and Smt.Mala B.Bhute, AGA for respondents 1 to 3 have appeared in person.
2. The short facts are as follows:
The husband of petitioner No.1 purchased the subject landed property bearing R.S.No.275/1A measuring 11 acres 32 guntas from one Neelava Gasagouda Patil under a registered sale dated 11.08.2019. Thereafter, the husband of petitioner No.1 filed a petition before the respondent No.3 and requested to enter his name in the record of rights as per the registered sale deed under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act . Accordingly, Tahsildar approved M.R.No.49 on 22.07.2010.
As the matter stood thus, the Neelava challenged the order of the Tahsildar before respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, and the Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 20.04.2012 dismissed the appeal of Smt.Neelava. Strangely, one Mr Bhimappa S/o Annappa Kollolli and Smt.Avubai W/o Suresh Patil challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner, and the Deputy Commissioner vide Order dated 18.05.2017 set-aside order of the Tahsildar and also the Assistant Commissioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is before this Court and has filed the present Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the memorandum of Writ Petition.
3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.
4. Sri.M.C.Hukkeri, counsel for the petitioners in presenting his argument vehemently contended that Smt.Neelavva had sold the property, and she died on 11.06.2012, leaving behind no legal heirs. Mr Bhimappa and Avubai have absolutely no connection to this land. He argued that the District Commission (DC) overlooked a key aspect and erroneously allowed the petition.
5. Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 3 justified the action on the part of the Deputy Commissioner.
6. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.
7. The core issue lies in the locus standi of Bhimappa and Avubai to maintain a challenge against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. The action initiated by Neelavva is not maintainable due to a lack of interest in the subject land. Since Neelavva sold the property, she no longer had the legal standing to initiate any action against it. Bhimappa and Avubai have no necessary standing as aggrieved parties, as they were not parties to the proceedings and, therefore, lack the requisite locus standi to contest the outcome. Therefore, they could not challenge the Assistant Commissioner's order. In my view, the DC is not justified in entertaining a petition, thereby violating the principle of locus standi. For the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is liable to be quashed.
8. The writ of certiorari is ordered. The order dated 18.05.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-D is quashed. The order made by the Tahsildar dated 22.07.2010 and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 20.04.2012 are confirmed.
9. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed
