SMT.RAJESWARI W/O.LATE P.MALLIKARJUNA vs PUJARI MALLKARJUNA S/O.LATE MUDI MALLAIAH

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16880
WP No. 138867 of 2020
C/W WP No. 138868 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020013552020



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

WRIT PETITION NO. 138867 OF 2020 (KLR-RES)

C/W

WRIT PETITION NO. 138868 OF 2020 (KLR-RES)



IN WP NO. 138867/2020
BETWEEN:

SMT. RAJESWARI W/O LATE P. MALLIKARJUNA,

AGED ABOUT; 59 YEARS,

R/O : WARD NO.5, MOKA VILLAGE,

TQ AND DIST : BALLARI PIN-583117.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAVI HEDGE AND SRI VINAYKUMAR BHAT, ADVOCATES)



AND:
BHARATHI
H M

1. SRI. PUJARI MALLKARJUNA S/O LATE MUDI MALLAIAH,
AGE. MAJOR,

Digitally signed by
BHARATHI H M
Location: high court of
karnataka, dharwad
bench
Date: 2026.10.29
14:42:18 +0530
R/O. MOKA VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583117.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI, DIST : BALLARI, PIN-583101.

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI, DIST : BALLARI, PIN : 583101.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16880
WP No. 138867 of 2020
C/W WP No. 138868 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020013552020


4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
MA VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: BALLARI
PIN : 583117.

5. THE TAHASILDAR,
TQ AND DIST : BALLARI
PIN : 583101.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R2 TO R5;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR
ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
2ND RESPONDENT IN REV APPEAL NO.42/2015-16 DATED 23.10.2019,
VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ALSO CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE
3RD RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.335/12-13, DATED 25.08.2015, VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

IN WP NO. 138868/2020
BETWEEN:
SMT. RAJESWARI W/O LATE P. MALLIKARJUNA,
AGED ABOUT; 59 YEARS,
R/O : WARD NO.5, MOKA VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST : BALLARI PIN-583117.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI HEDGE AND SRI. VINAYKUMAR BHAT,
ADVOCATES)

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16880
WP No. 138867 of 2020
C/W WP No. 138868 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020013552020


AND:
1. SRI. PUJARI MALLKARJUNA S/O LATE MUDI MALLAIAH,
AGE. MAJOR,
R/O. MOKA VILLAGE,
TQ AND DIST. BALLARI-583117.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI, DIST : BALLARI, PIN-583101.

3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BALLARI, DIST : BALLARI, PIN : 583101.

4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR,
MA VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: BALLARI
PIN : 583117.

5. THE TAHASILDAR,
TQ AND DIST : BALLARI
PIN : 583101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R2 TO R5;
NOTICE TO R1 IS SERVED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN REV APPEAL
NO.42/2015-16 DATED 23.10.2019,VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND
ALSO CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT IN APPEAL NO.335/12-13, DATED 25.08.2015,
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16880
WP No. 138867 of 2020
C/W WP No. 138868 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020013552020



THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’
GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

ORAL ORDER

In WP No.138867/2020 the petitioner challenges the orders
of the Assistant Commissioner and of the Deputy Commissioner
produced as Annexures-A and B respectively to the writ petition.
The order at Annexure-A is dated 25.08.2015 and the order at
Annexure-B is dated 23.10.2019. In WP No.138868/2020 the
petitioner challenges the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and
of the Deputy Commissioner produced as Annexures-A and B
respectively to the writ petition. The order at Annexure-A is dated
25.08.2015 and the order at Annexure-B is dated 23.10.2019.

2. In WP No.138867/2020 it is seen that the subject
matter of the challenge before the Assistant Commissioner was a
mutation order relating to entries in revenue records in MR
No.23/1979-80. That order of mutation was challenged by the
respondents herein by filing an appeal before the Assistant
Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16880
WP No. 138867 of 2020
C/W WP No. 138868 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020013552020


Revenue Act, 1964 in the year 2012. There was a delay of about 32
years in challenging the order of mutation. In WP No.138868/2020
the order of mutation is bearing MR No.10/2007-08 dated
30.08.2007. That mutation order was challenged before the
Assistant Commissioner in an appeal in 2012. In both the cases, by
the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner the
orders of mutation have been set aside and the matter has been
remanded to the Tahasildar.

3. I have heard Sri.Ravi Hegde, learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for
respondent Nos.2 to 5.

4. Respondent No.1 in both the matters is served but he is
not represented.

5. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner
that the Assistant Commissioner condoned the delay of about 32
years in WP No.138867/2020 and the delay of about 5 years in WP
No.138868/2020, ex-parte . The Assistant Commissioner took it
upon himself to condone the delay before even notice was issued to
the respondents in the appeal. It is his contention that in view of
the large delay, the respondents in an appeal ought to have been

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16880
WP No. 138867 of 2020
C/W WP No. 138868 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020013552020


given an opportunity to contest the application seeking condonation
of delay and only then could the Assistant Commissioner have
condoned the delay and considered the matter on merits. In
support of his submissions, Sri.Hegde relies on a judgment of this
Court in WP Nos.20293/2017 C/w. 20344/2017 dated 28.06.2017
and also a judgment of this Court in the case of Dharmoji
Devendra Kadabi Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum and
1
Others . It is his contention that the orders of the Assistant
Commissioner have been mechanically upheld by the Deputy
Commissioner in revision petitions filed by his client. It is his
further submission that quite apart from the large delay, the orders
of the Assistant Commissioner and of the Deputy Commissioner are
cryptic and do not contain valid reasons for setting aside the order
of mutation.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate opposes the
writ petition and submits that the order of the Assistant
Commissioner is only one of remand. The petitioner can contest the
mutation proceedings upon remand and state her case.

7. On a careful consideration of the orders of the Assistant
Commissioner and of the Deputy Commissioner, it is clear that

1
1999 (6) Kar.L.J. 297

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16880
WP No. 138867 of 2020
C/W WP No. 138868 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020013552020


there has been no real consideration of the merits of the matter.
The reasoning in both the orders is not satisfactory. The orders are
cryptic and without a proper discussion of the reasons for which the
appeal and revision were decided in the manner that they were.

8. There is some force in the contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner that the Assistant Commissioner could not
have condoned the large delay, particularly of more than three
decades in the first case, without even issuing notice on the
question of delay to the respondents.

9. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the orders at
Annexures-A and B are set aside by allowing the writ petition.
Resultantly, the following:
ORDER
i) Both the writ petitions are allowed .
ii) The orders at Annexure-A dated 25.08.2015
and Annexure-B dated 23.10.2019 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy
Commissioner respectively, are hereby set aside.

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16880
WP No. 138867 of 2020
C/W WP No. 138868 of 2020


CNR: KAHC020013552020


iii) The appeals in both the writ petitions are
remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to first
consider the question of delay in filing the appeal
under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964.
iv) Sufficient opportunity will be granted to the
petitioner herein to contest the appeal not only on
the question of delay but also on merits.
v) The Assistant Commissioner is required to
pass a reasoned order on the aspect of delay
before considering the appeal on its merits.
No order as to costs.



Sd/-
(RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA)
JUDGE



PJ/CT:SD
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 46