SRI VENKATESHAPPA vs SMT ZAHIDUNNISA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59227
WP No. 1156 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010019952026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 17 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 1156 OF 2026 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA
S/O CHIKKAPAPA NAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
2. SRI. GOVINDAPPA
S/O LATE CHIKKAPAPA NAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
BOTH ARE R/AT. MARINAYAKANAHALLI
MURUGAMALA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK
CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GANGI REDDY B.V, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VINUTHA B S
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
AND:
1.
SMT. ZAHIDUNNISA
W/O LATE. MOHAMMAD ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS.
2. SRI. MOHAMMED INAYATHULLA
S/O LATE. MOHAMMAD ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
3.
SMT. NAAZ SULTHANA,
D/O LATE. MOHAMMAD ISMAIL
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59227
WP No. 1156 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010019952026
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
4. SRI. MOHAMMED GHOUSE,
S/O LATE. MOHAMMAD ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
5.
SRI. MOHAMMED KHADER ALI
S/O. LATE MOHAMMAD ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
6. SRI. MOHAMMED KHALEELUR RAHMAN
S/O LATE. MOHAMMAD ISMAIL
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
THE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE
RESIDENTS OF GAJANAN CIRCLE,
POLYTECHNIC ROAD,
CHINTHAMANI - 563 125.
7. THE TAHASILDAR
CHINTAMANI TALUK,
CHINTAMANI - 563 125.
8. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION
CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.
9. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
(FORMERLY KOLAR DISTRICT),
CHICKBALLAPUR - 562 101.
10. A.M. MUNIRAJU
S/O MAHANTHAPPA
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59227
WP No. 1156 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010019952026
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT. DOOR NO.21, 1ST MAIN ROAD
VIDYASAGARA (SARAYIPALYA)
SHIVARAMA KARANTHA NAGARA POST
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 077.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. G.S. ARUNA, HCGP FOR R7, R8 AND R9;
SRI. H.S. RAMAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R10;
R2 SERVED;
VIDE ORDER DATED 12.10.2026, NOTICE TO R1 TO R9
DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS IN OS NO. 7/2011 ON THE FILE OF HONORABLE SR.
CIVIL JUDGE AT CHINTHAMANI AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition challenges the order dated
24.07.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,
Chintamani, in O.S. No. 7/2011, whereby the application filed
under Order XVI Rules 6 and 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, seeking the issuance of summons for the production of
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59227
WP No. 1156 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010019952026
documents and the examination of witnesses, came to be
rejected.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the specific case of the plaintiff is that the land in
question was originally granted in favour of the plaintiff’s
father. It is further submitted that the land was initially put up
for sale by public auction, but the auction was cancelled on
account of the failure to deposit the auction consideration.
Subsequently, the land was granted in favour of the plaintiff’s
father, who belongs to a Scheduled Tribe community, thereby
attracting the provisions of the applicable protective legislation.
3. It is further submitted that the records pertaining to
the land, which are in the custody of the Tahsildar, are
necessary to ascertain the nature of the rights conferred upon
the plaintiff’s father. Learned counsel contends that fabricated
documents were produced before the Division Bench of this
Court, resulting in a finding that the land in question had not
been granted but had been purchased through public auction.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59227
WP No. 1156 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010019952026
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the impugned order has been passed
in conformity with the judgment dated 02.08.2010 rendered by
the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 3592/2009. It is
submitted that the Division Bench categorically held that the
land in question was neither reserved for nor granted in favour
of a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
community, but was purchased by the plaintiff’s father through
public auction. Accordingly, it is contended that the provisions
of the applicable protective legislation are not attracted.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the impugned order.
6. The petitioner has instituted the suit seeking
declaratory relief and recovery of possession. In the said suit,
an application came to be filed seeking summons for the
production of records relating to the land in question from the
office of the Tahsildar, with a view to establishing the
contention that the land had been granted in favour of the
plaintiff’s father.
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59227
WP No. 1156 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010019952026
7. The trial Court rejected the application by relying on
the findings recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in
W.A. No. 3592/2009.
8. A perusal of the judgment of the Division Bench
indicates that a finding has already been recorded that the land
in question was not granted in favour of the plaintiff’s father
but was purchased by him through public auction.
Consequently, the Division Bench held that the provisions of
the applicable protective legislation were not attracted. The
said finding having attained finality, the Trial Court cannot
permit the petitioner to reopen the same issue contrary to the
binding determination.
9. In view of the findings already recorded by the
Division Bench, summoning the documents for the purpose of
re-establishing the same contention would serve no useful
purpose.
10. Accordingly, this Court finds no error or infirmity in
the impugned order warranting interference in the exercise of
its writ jurisdiction.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59227
WP No. 1156 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010019952026
11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
VN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2