SHIVANAND S/O NIJAGUNAYYA BABALADIMATH vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16243
WP No. 104023 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020112972024



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

TH
DATED THIS THE 29 DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 104023 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

1. SHIVANAND S/O. NIJAGUNAYYA BABALADIMATH,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BYADARAHATTI VILLAGE,
AT POST CHANKERI,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

2. SHAMUBLING S/O. NIJAGUNAYYA BABALADIMATH,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BYADARAHATTI VILLAGE,
AT POST: CHANKERI,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

3. SIDDAVVA W/O. SADASHIV BABALADIMATH,
AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BYADARAHATTI VILLAGE,
AT POST: CHANKERI,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

4. RATNAYYA S/O. SADASHIV BABLADIMATH,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BYADARAHATTI VILLAGE,
AT POST: CHANKERI,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.

5. THEERTHA JAMBAYYA BEDASURAMATHA,
AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: BYADARAHATTI VILLAGE,
AT POST: CHANKERI,
TQ: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALLIGAWAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,













Digitally signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.10.12
16:20:46 +0530

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16243
WP No. 104023 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020112972024


M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
CHIKKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

4. THE TAHASILDAR, ATHANI,
DIST: DHARWAD – 580 001.

5. YAMANAPPA BASAPPA SUTTAR,
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BYADARAHATTI VILLAGE,
AT POST: CHANKERI,
TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.

6. HALAYYA SIDDAYYA BABALADIMATH,
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BYADARAHATTI VILLAGE,
AT POST: CHANKERI,
TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI – 590 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. GURUDEV I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6;
NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
14-03-2024 BEARING NO.RB/RTA/48/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE - F
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 2 VIDE ANNEXURE – F. TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER
DATED 27-04-2015 BEARING NO. 11E/ KSHEDU/ AKARBAND/
CR/260 / 2014-15 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE –
D AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16243
WP No. 104023 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020112972024


ORAL ORDER



1. Petitioners claiming to be the owners in possession of
agricultural land bearing R.S.No.57/1 measuring 2 acres 8
guntas out of 6 acres 7 guntas situated at Chamkeri
Village, Athani Taluk, Belagavi are before this Court
seeking following reliefs:
“1. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
order dated 14-03-2024 bearing no. RB/ RTA/ 48/ 2023-
24 vide Annexure - F passed by respondent no. 2 vide
Annexure – F.

2. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 27-04-2015 bearing No. 11E/ Kshedu/ Akarband/
CR/260 / 2014-15 passed by respondent no.3 vide
Annexure – D.

3. Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble court may deem
fit in the interests of justice and equity.”



2. Learned counsel for petitioners taking this Court through
the records submits that an extent of 2 acres 8 guntas of
land forming part of Sy.No.57 belonged to one Babaladi
Nijagunayya Halayya. That there was a partition amongst
the family members of Babaladi Nijagunayya Halayya in
terms of compromise entered into in O.S.No.1328/2014.
That the names of the family members of the said Babaladi
Nijagunayya Halayya have been entered into the revenue
records reflecting and establishing the fact that they are

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16243
WP No. 104023 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020112972024


the owners in possession of 2 acres 8 guntas of land.
However, respondent No.3-Assistnat Commissioner
without issuing any notice or conducting any proceedings,
by the undated impugned order at Annexure-D, has
reduced the extent of the land held by said Babaladi
Nijagunayya Halayya from 2 acres 8 guntas to 2 acres 1
gunta. No reason of any nature whatsoever is assigned in
the said order at Annexure-D.

3. Being aggrieved, petitioners had preferred a review
petition before the Deputy Commissioner in proceedings
No. Dgï©/DgïnJ/48/2023-24 ¨É¼ÀUÁ« as per Annexure-F. The
Deputy Commissioner without appreciating the claim and
the averments made by the petitioners has dismissed the
said review petition.

4. Being aggrieved, the present petition.

5. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the
respondent-Authorities have no jurisdiction to reduce the
extent of land possessed by the petitioners without due
process of law.

6. The revenue records indicate that the petitioners being in
possession of 2 acres 8 guntas, whereas the impugned

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16243
WP No. 104023 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020112972024


order though taken note of the said entitlement of the
petitioners, has unilaterally reduced the extent from 2
acres 8 guntas to 2 acres 1 gunta causing diminution of
the extent of land of the petitioners. Hence, seeks for
allowing the petition.

7. Learned HCGP on the other hand submits that the reasons
for reduction of the extent of land is shown at page No.3 of
the order passed the Deputy Commissioner produced at
page No.36 of the writ petition. He submits an extent of 11
guntas of land has been utilized by the PWD Department
after issuing notice to everyone. Thus, this utilization of 11
guntas of land had constrained the Revenue Authorities to
rectify the revenue entries. It is in the wake of the same,
the order at Annexure-D came to be passed by the
Assistant Commissioner, which is now confirmed by the
Deputy Commissioner.

8. Heard. Perused the records.

9. The impugned order at Annexure-D passed by the
Assistant Commissioner indicates Babaladi Nijagunayya
Halayya to be the owner in possession of 2 acres 8 guntas

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16243
WP No. 104023 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020112972024


of land in Sy.No.57/2A, while the change in the entries
indicate that the said extent of 2 acres 8 guntas has been
reduced to 2 acres 1 gunta. The said
document/Annexure-D does not indicate any notice having
been issued to the petitioners so also any inquiry has been
conducted while reducing the extent of land in the revenue
entry. Challenge to the said order of the Assistant
Commissioner raised by the petitioners herein in review
proceedings No. Dgï©/DgïnJ/48/2023-24 ¨É¼ÀUÁ« at Annexure-F
before the Deputy Commissioner has resulted in its
rejection.

10. The Deputy Commissioner at unnumbered paragraph No.4
of page No.2 of its order continued in page No.3 has taken
note of the fact that an extent of 11 guntas of land farming
part of Sy.No.57/1 has been acquired for public purpose by
the PWD Department for the purpose of construction of
canal. It is in these circumstances, the extent of land has
been rectified. The authority/right of the State being
eminent domain to expropriate the land belonged to the
citizen cannot be denied. However, such exercise of power
of eminent domain shall be strictly in consonance with the
constitutional right recognized under Article 300A of the

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16243
WP No. 104023 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020112972024


Constitution of India. Merely because an extent of 11
guntas of land purportedly utilized by PWD Department

that does not give unbridled power to the Revenue
Officers to reduce the extent of the land in the revenue
records without even issuing notice to the persons
affected. Inasmuch as, the constitutional right for
compensation in respect of property, if appropriated,
cannot be taken away.

11. In that view of the matter, following order:

i) Petition is allowed.

ii) Impugned orders produced at Annexures-D and F
are quashed.

iii) Matter is remitted to respondent No.3-Assistant
Commissioner to conduct inquiry, afford opportunity
to the petitioners, offer reason for reduction of the
extent of land as sought to be made in the revenue
records.

iv) It is made clear, if in the event of the land of the
petitioners has been reduced for the purpose of the
same having been utilized for public purposes,

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16243
WP No. 104023 of 2024


CNR: KAHC020112972024


petitioners are entitled for the compensation under
the applicable provisions of law.

v) Petitioners are at liberty to make a fresh
representation to the respondent-Authorities.

vi) Respondent-Authorities are at liberty to initiate fresh
proceedings and pass such order as permissible
under law.


Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE


SH/CT: ASC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54