##PAGE1##

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

WRIT PETITION No.104421 OF 2024 (GM - RES)

BETWEEN:

1 . LAXMAVVA W/O SOMAPPA DHUPAD

AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS

OCC.: AGRICULTURE

GUDNEPPANAMATHA

WARD NO. 19

KUKANOOR – 583 232

TQ.: KUKANOOR

DISTRICT KOPPAL.

2. MALLAYYA

S/O SANGAYYA ALASINAMARAD

AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

OCC.: AGRICULTURE

GUDNEPPANAMATHA

WARD NO.19

KUKANOOR – 583 232

TALUK KUKNOOR

DISTRICT KOPPAL.

3. SANGAMMA

W/O BASAYYA HADAGALI

AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS

OCC.: AGRICULTURE

GUDNEPPANAMATHA

WARD NO.19

##PAGE2##

2

KUKANOOR – 583 232

TALUK KUKNOOR

DISTRICT KOPPAL.

4. GUDNEYYA

S/O CHANNAYYAOLI

AGED ABOUT 98 YEARS

OCC.: AGRICULTURE

GUDNEPPANAMATHA

WARD NO.19

KUKANOOR – 583 232

TALUK KUKNOOR

DISTRICT KOPPAL.

5. VIRUPAXAYYA

S/O SIDDAYYA HUNASIMARAD

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

OCC.: AGRICULTURE

GUDNEPPANAMATHA

WARD 19

KUKANOOR – 583 232

TALUK KUKNOOR

DISTRICT KOPPAL.

6. BASAYYA

S/O GUDNEYYA BEKKIN

AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

OCC.: AGRICULTURE

GUDNEPPANAMATHA

WARD NO.19

KUKANOOR – 583 232

TALUK KUKNOOR

DISTRICT KOPPAL.

7. SIDDALINGAYYA

S/O ISHWARAYYA GALABI

AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS

OCC.: AGRICULTURE

##PAGE3##

3

GUDNEPPANAMATHA

WARD NO.19

KUKANOOR – 583 232

TALUK KUKNOOR

DISTRICT KOPPAL.

8. SHANTHAVVA

W/O BASAYYA HUNASIMARAD

AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

OCC.: AGRICULTURE

GUDNEPPANAMATHA

WARD NO.19

KUKANOOR – 583 232

TALUK KUKNOOR

DISTRICT KOPPAL.

9. BASAYYA

S/O ERAYYA HUNASIMARAD

AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS

OCC.: AGRICULTURE

GUDNEPPANAMATHA

WARD NO.19

KUKANOOR – 583 232

TALUK KUKNOOR

DISTRICT KOPPAL.

10. ERAYYA

S/O VIRUPAXAYYA BYALI

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

OCC.: AGRICULTURE

GUDNEPPANAMATHA

WARD NO. 19

KUKANOOR – 583 232

TALUK KUKNOOR

DISTRICT KOPPAL.

##PAGE4##

4

11. RUDRAYYA

S/O SIDDALINGAYYABANDI

AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

OCC.: AGRICULTURE

GUDNEPPANAMATHA

WARD NO.19

KUKANOOR – 583 232

TALUK KUKNOOR

DISTRICT KOPPAL.

12. KOTRAYYA S.,

S/O CHANNABASAYYA SHELUDI

AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS

OCC.: AGRICULTURE

GUDNEPPANAMATHA

WARD NO.19

KUKANOOR – 583 232

TALUK KUKNOOR

DISTRICT KOPPAL.

... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI DAYANAND M.BANDI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

VIDHANASOUDHA

BENGLAURU – 560 001

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

KOPPAL DISTRICT

KOPPAL – 583 231.

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

KOPPAL DISTRICT

##PAGE5##

5

KOPPAL – 583 231.

4. TAHASILDAR

KUKNOOR TALUKA

DISTRICT – KOPPAL – 583 232.

5. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS

YELBURGA

DISTRICT KOPPAL – 583 236.

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI J.M.GANGADHAR, AAG A/W

SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO -I) ISSUE WRIT

OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER IN THE FORM OF

DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER NO. KAM.E.51/MU.AA.BI 2023

BENGALURU DATED. 15-03-2024 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 1

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALSO TO

QUASH THE CONSEQUENTIAL REVENUE MAPS VIDE ANNEXURE-J1,

J2 AND J3 PREPARED BY RESPONDENT NO. 5 IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE AND EQUITY; II) ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY

OTHER ORDER IN THE FORM OF DIRECTION AS AGAINST THE

RESPONDENTS SO AS NOT TO INTERFERE / UTILIZE / USE /

ACQUIRE ANY PORTION OF 40 ACRES OF LAND SITUATED AT

NORTHERN END OF COMPRISED IN SY NO. 78/*/* OF THE OF

KUKANOOR VILLAGE OF KUKANOOR TALUKA OF KOPPAL DISTRICT

BELONGING TO THE PETITIONERS ALSO DIRECT THE

RESPONDENTS SO AS TO REFRAIN FROM PEACEFUL ENJOYMENT

##PAGE6##

6

OF THE SAID LAND BY THE PETITIONERS IN THE INTEREST OF

JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED

FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE

COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

Petitioners 12 of them are before this Court calling in question

an order dated 15-03-2024 passed by the 1^st respondent/State

declaring a portion of 40 acres of schedule land to be utilized for

the purpose of construction of a civil Court and other public utilities.

2. Heard Sri Dayanand Bandi, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioners and Sri J.M. Gangadhar, learned Additional Advocate

General appearing for the respondents.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: -

3.1. One Gudneshwa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document