MALLESHAPPA S/O ERAPPA MALAVALLI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD



TH
DATED THIS THE 8 DAY OF OCTOBER 2026

R
PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

AND

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI


WRIT APPEAL NO.100844 OF 2026

BETWEEN:

MALLESHAPPA S/O. ERAPPA MALAVALLI
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BURDIKATTI VILLAGE,
TQ: HIREKERUR, DIST: HAVERI-581111.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI.GIRISH V.BHAT, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
TH
5 FLOOR, MS BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.










Digitally signed
by PRATIBHA M
PATIL
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
BENCH
Date: 2026.11.13
14:51:38 +0530

2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR
REGIONAL LAND RECORDS,
BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001.

3. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
REGIONAL LAND RECORDS,
BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001.

4. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
DHARWAD, DIST: DHARWAD-580001.

5. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
HAVERI, DIST: HAVERI-581110.

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


6. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
LAND RECORDS, HAVERI,
DIST: HAVERI-581110.
7. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
LAND RECORDS, HIREKERUR-581111.

8. THE SUBDIVISIONAL OFFICER
LAND RECORDS, HAVERI SUB-DIVISION,
HAVERI-581110.

9. THE TAHASHILDAR AND
TALUKA MAGISTRATE,
HIREKERUR TALUK,
HIREKERUR-581111.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.GIRIJA S.HIREMATH, HCGP)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT
APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED COMMON ORDER PASSED
BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.
NO.101796/2023 C/W W.P. NOS.103967/2023 AND 103969/2023
DATED 16.07.2026, INSOFAR AS IT RELATES TO THE APPELLANT IN
W.P.NO.103969/2023, AND CONSEQUENTIALLY ALLOW W.P.NO.
103969/2023 AND GRANT SUCH OTHER ORDERS AND RELIEFS
DEEMED FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
AND
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE HEMA KULKARNI )

This intra-court appeal is directed against the impugned
common order dated 16.07.2026 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.No.101796/2023 c/w W.P.Nos.103967/2023 and
103969/2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant
in W.P.No.103969/2023, seeking quashing of the revenue
proceedings dated 21.10.2022, came to be dismissed. The
appellant is aggrieved by the said common order insofar as it
relates to W.P.No.103969/2023. The core grievance of the
appellant pertains to the arbitrary alteration of land records and
reduction in the measured extent of land bearing Sy.No.28
situated at Buradikatti Village, Hirekerur Taluk, Haveri District,
without issuing notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to
the appellant.

2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. Girish V. Bhat
appearing for the appellant and the learned High Court
Government Pleader Smt. Girija S. Hiremath appearing for the
respondents.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026



3. Facts in brief germane are as follows:

3.1. The appellant is an agriculturist and is claiming
absolute ownership, possession, and cultivation over the land
bearing Sy.No.28 situated at Buradikatti Village, Hirekerur
Taluk, Haveri District. The grandfather of the appellant had
inherited the said land from his father by way of Varsa on
24.01.1962 and the same was entered in the revenue records
by Mutation Entry No.960. The dispute originated when
respondent No.9 issued a notice dated 09.06.2022 directing the
appellant to refrain from cultivating the subject land on the
assertion that it had been acquired by the Government in the
year 1948 for providing residential sites to shelterless persons.

3.2. Upon receipt of the notice dated 09.06.2022, the
appellant wrote a letter to respondent No.9 requesting him to
provide the documents regarding acquisition proceedings took
place in the year 1948. The respondent No.2 by the reply dated
26.09.2022 stated that no documents regarding the acquisition
proceedings are available in the office.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026



3.3. Being aggrieved by the illegal interference with his
peaceful possession without supporting statutory records, the
appellant approached this Court in W.P.No.105590/2022.
Subsequently, respondent No.9 withdrew the notice issued to
the appellant directing the appellant not to cultivate the subject
land. Consequently, W.P.No.105590/2022 came to be disposed
of as having become infructuous on 15.02.2023.

3.4. Pursuant to the liberty granted while disposing of
the earlier writ petition to seek the documents relating to the
alleged acquisition under the Right to Information Act, an
application was submitted seeking the acquisition records from
the concerned respondent authorities. However, the respondent
authorities replied stating that the documents pertaining to the
said acquisition were not available in their respective officers.

3.5. That, the father of the appellant along with some
other villagers cultivating the lands bearing Sy.Nos.21B, 28B,
29B and 48B and had also submitted representations before the
respondent authorities stating that though acquisition
proceedings were stated to have taken place, the acquisition
had not been completed and that they were continuing to

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


cultivate the lands, the revenue entries continued in their
names and no compensation had been paid by the
Government. During the pendency of the earlier writ petition,
the respondent/authorities altered the measurement of
Sy.Nos.28B, 29, and 48B and merged the lands of the said
survey numbers in Sy.No.21B. It was specifically pleaded that
Sy.No.21/1 measuring 02 acres 30 guntas and Sy.No.21/2
measuring 02 acres 24 guntas were extended to a total
measurement of 14 acres 26 guntas by Mutation dated
31.12.2022, without issuing notice to the appellant.

3.6. Being aggrieved by the proceedings bearing
No.REV/SARVE/PODI/SR-93/2022-23 dated 21.10.2022,
insofar as the same related to the appellant’s land bearing
Sy.No.28 and the consequential alteration of the revenue
records, the appellant approached this Court in
W.P.No.103969/2023, seeking quashing of the said proceedings
and a consequential direction to restore the changes made to
the record of rights pertaining to Sy.No.28 of Buradikatti
Village.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026



3.7. W.P.No.103969/2023 was heard along with
W.P.Nos.101796/2023 and 103967/2023. The respondent-
State opposed the writ petitions contending that he acquisition
proceedings had concluded in the year 1948 and thereafter
sites had been allotted to various persons and that the revenue
records were changed in terms of the said allotments. The
respondents in the aforesaid petitions relied upon the judgment
and decree dated 06.01.2005 passed in O.S.No.6/1996 by the
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and JMFC, Ranebennur
and the judgment dated 01.03.2017 passed by this Court in
RFA No.753/2005.

3.8. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA
No.753/2005 observed that O.S.No.6/1996 filed by several
villagers seeking a declaration of title and possession, was
dismissed by the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) and
JMFC, Ranebennur, vide judgment and decree dated
06.01.2005. The Civil Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to
establish that the acquisition proceedings had never acted upon
or that they had perfected their title by adverse possession and

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


therefore, dismissed the appeal on 01.03.2017 confirming the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6/1996.

3.9. Relying on the aforesaid findings of the Civil Court,
the learned Single Judge held that the petitioners’ contention
regarding their continuous possession of the subject properties
could not be accepted. Accordingly, W.P.No.103969/2023 and
the connected writ petitions were dismissed by the impugned
common order dated 16.07.2026, without independently
examining the validity of the subsequent administrative
proceedings dated 21.10.2022 or adjudicating the petitioners’
grievance regarding the denial of an opportunity of hearing and
the consequent violation of the principles of natural justice.
Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred the
present writ appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently
contends that the impugned common order dated 16.07.2026,
passed by the learned Single Judge, is perverse, arbitrary, and
contrary to the settled principles of law. It is submitted that the
principal challenge in W.P.No.103969/2023 was directed
against the fresh administrative proceedings bearing No.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


REV/SARVE/PODI/SR-93/2022-23 dated 21.10.2022, which
were initiated and concluded behind the appellant’s back,
without issuance of notice or affording the appellant an
opportunity of hearing, thereby resulting in a gross violation of
the principles of natural justice.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant further submits
that the learned Single Judge committed a fundamental error in
failing to adjudicate the core legal challenge regarding
procedural illegalities in revenue alterations. It is submitted
that findings in civil suits regarding possession cannot confer
power on revenue authorities to alter existing survey
measurements and revenue records unilaterally without
following due statutory procedure under the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964.

6. It is specifically highlighted that the respondents
authorities themselves admitted in official RTI replies dated
26.09.2022 that no documents relating to the alleged 1948
acquisition are available. Moreover, official correspondence
dated 10.11.1993 issued by the Tahsildar, Hirekerur, explicitly
records that although acquisition was stated to have taken

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


place in 1948, the original landowners continued in
uninterrupted possession and cultivation of Sy.No.28, and no
steps were ever taken by the State to dispossess them.

7. Learned counsel heavily relies upon Section 24(2) of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
1
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 ,
contending that even assuming acquisition proceedings were
initiated in 1948, the acquisition is deemed to have lapsed
since physical possession was never taken by the State and no
compensation was ever determined or paid to the landowners.
Relying on statutory provisions and precedent, counsel submits
that non-payment of compensation and retention of physical
possession for over 75 years renders the acquisition lapsed by
operation of law, making the impugned revenue order dated
21.10.2022 wholly unsustainable.

8. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for respondents No.1 to 9 supports the
impugned order dated 16.07.2026 passed by the learned Single
Judge. It is submitted that the subject lands in Sy.Nos.21B,

1
Hereinafter referred to as the ‘2013 Act’

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


28B, 29B, and 48B measuring in total 14 acres 26 guntas were
duly acquired by the State Government under acquisition
proceedings way back in the year 1948 for the public purpose
of forming 63 residential plots for allotment to siteless persons.

9. The learned HCGP further submits that public
possession of the acquired lands was taken in 1951, and KJP
Shaje No.05/1951 was duly prepared along with revenue
entries such as Akarband and KDT. It is argued that
subsequent administrative orders passed under
LAQ/SR:175/93-94 dated 23.06.1994 and LBP/SR/288:93-94
dated 08.06.1995 re-allotted plots to eligible beneficiaries.
Therefore, respondent No.2 rightly passed the proceedings
dated 21.10.2022 to align the revenue records with official
maps and PT sheets, committing no illegality or error.

10. It is further contended that the appellant has no locus
standi or subsisting right over the property, as the findings in
O.S.No.6/1996 and RFA No.753/2005 operate as res judicata
regarding possession and adverse possession. It is submitted
that the learned Single Judge properly exercised discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India based

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


on undisputed judicial findings, and no interference is called for
in an intra-court appeal unless the order is palpably wrong or
illegal.

11. After hearing both the parties the following points that
arise for consideration are:

i) Whether the appellant has made out a case for
interference with the order of the learned single
judge in the limited jurisdiction of an intra-
court appeal?

ii) Whether the acquisition of the subject lands
can be held to have lapsed under Section 24(2)
of the 2013 Act in these writ proceedings?

iii) Whether the order impugned in the writ
petition dated 21.10.2022 passed by
respondent No.2 is liable to be quashed for
want of notice and hearing?
Regarding Point No.(i)

12. An intra-court appeal under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, is not an occasion for a second
round of reappreciation of the entire matter. The Appellate
Bench would interfere with the order of the learned Single

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


Judge only where it suffers from a patent error of law,
perversity, or failure to consider material evidence or
circumstances going to the root of the case. In the present
case, the learned Single Judge based the impugned decision on
the findings recorded by the competent Civil Court in its
judgment dated 06.01.2005 in O.S.No.6/1996, which was
affirmed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA
No.753/2005. The said proceedings pertained to the very lands
that are the subject matter of the present dispute. The Civil
Court held that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the
acquisition proceedings had never been acted upon or that they
had perfected their title by adverse possession. The said
findings have attained finality. The appellant asserts title only
by succession through their ancestors, who are the original
holders. He doesn’t claim any independent source of title. The
claim of continued possession has been negatived by the Civil
Court after a full trial, which cannot be reopened again in the
writ proceedings under Article 226 of constitution of India.

13. The non-availability of records pertaining to the
acquisition during the period 1945-48 in a particular office,

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


nearly eight decades later, does not, by itself, establish that no
acquisition had taken place. Such non-availability cannot
outweigh the State’s documented case, as reflected in the
records, the Akarband and KDP entries, and the allotment
orders issued in 1994 and 1995. Much less can it displace the
findings recorded in the judgment and decree of the Civil Court,
which were affirmed in appeal. Further, the Tahsildar’s letter
dated 10.11.1993 was already in existence well before the
disposal of the civil suit and, therefore, cannot be relied upon to
displace or reopen the findings recorded by the competent Civil
Court. We therefore find no perversity or error of law in the
order of the learned Single Judge declining to accept appellants
claim of continuous possession. Accordingly, we answer Point
No.(i) in the ‘Negative’
Regarding Point No.(ii)

14. The plea of deemed lapse of the acquisition
proceedings is untenable for more than one reason.

15. Firstly, the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in INDORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v.

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


2
MANOHARLAL AND OTHERS , held that deemed lapse under
Section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, occurs only where the conditions
stipulated therein are satisfied, namely, that possession of the
land has not been taken and compensation has not been paid,
both conditions being cumulative. The taking of possession by
drawing a panchnama is a recognised mode of evidencing the
taking of possession. Once possession is taken and the land
vests in the State, free from all encumbrances, any subsequent
re-entry or continued cultivation by the erstwhile owner does
not divest the State of its title. The Constitution Bench further
held that Section 24 does not revive stale claims or reopen
concluded proceedings.

16. Secondly, whether possession of the subject lands
was taken in 1951 and whether compensation was paid are
questions that must be examined with reference to the relevant
facts and evidence. The State relies upon the KJP Shaje records
to substantiate its claim that possession was taken in 1951,

2
(2020) 8 SCC 129

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


whereas the appellant relies upon subsequent correspondence
to dispute the same. The Civil Court has already rejected the
contention that the acquisition proceedings were never acted
upon. In these circumstances, the same cannot be reopened in
writ jurisdiction, much less in an intra-court appeal.

17. Thirdly, the appellant’s writ petition was directed
against the subsequent revenue proceedings dated 21.10.2022
and not against the original acquisition proceedings. A
declaration that the acquisition proceedings initiated during
1945–1948 had lapsed, sought more than seven decades later
and after the unsuccessful pursuit of civil litigation, cannot be
granted collaterally in proceedings challenging the subsequent
revenue proceedings. Accordingly, the plea of deemed lapse is
devoid of merit and does not warrant interference by this
Court.
Regarding Point No.(iii)


18. The impugned order dated 21.10.2022 was passed by
respondent No.2, the Joint Director of Land Records (JDLR), in
the course of survey and phodi proceedings. The Karnataka

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


Land Revenue Act, 1964, provides statutory remedies of appeal
and/or revision, as applicable, against orders passed by the
competent revenue authorities. Instead of availing such
statutory remedies, the appellant directly invoked the writ
jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

19. The existence of an efficacious alternative statutory
remedy is a well-established ground for the writ Court to
decline interference. The recognised exceptions include cases
involving a violation of fundamental rights, a breach of the
principles of natural justice, a challenge to the vires of
legislation, or an order passed wholly without jurisdiction. In
the present case, the appellant’s grievance regarding the
alleged denial of an opportunity of hearing must be examined
in the context of the nature of the proceedings and the rights
already adjudicated by the competent Civil Court. The
circumstances pleaded do not, by themselves, warrant the
exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

- 18 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026



20. It is well settled that revenue entries neither create
nor extinguish title to immovable property; they are primarily
maintained for fiscal purposes and must ordinarily reflect the
rights established through lawful means. In the present case,
the dispute concerning title to and possession of the subject
lands was adjudicated in O.S.No.6/1996, and the judgment and
decree therein were affirmed in RFA No.753/2005. The findings
recorded in those proceedings have attained finality.

21. A fresh enquiry in revenue proceedings, independent
of the findings recorded in the concluded civil litigation, would
serve no useful purpose insofar as it seeks to reopen issues
already adjudicated by a competent Civil Court. The revenue
authorities cannot sit in appeal over, or disregard, a binding
civil court decree.

22. In this context, the question that arises is whether the
failure to issue notice to the appellant has occasioned any
legally cognisable prejudice. The rights claimed by the appellant
in respect of the subject lands have already been considered in
the civil proceedings, which culminated in findings adverse to
the plaintiffs’ claim. Revenue entries and mutation registers are

- 19 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


intended to reflect rights acquired through succession, transfer,
decree, acquisition, or other lawful means; they cannot be used
to override or reopen rights finally adjudicated by a competent
Civil Court.

23. Accordingly, the mere issuance of notice to the
appellant, followed by a hearing, would not, by itself, entitle the
appellant to reopen the findings recorded in the concluded civil
proceedings. Any consequential action by the revenue
authorities would necessarily have to conform to the binding
adjudication of the competent Civil Court, subject to the scope
of the revenue proceedings and the applicable law.

24. The grievance regarding the violation of the principles
of natural justice must, therefore, be examined in this context.
Although the denial of a fair hearing may, in an appropriate
case, constitute a ground for interference, the Court must also
consider whether the alleged breach has resulted in actual
prejudice. In the present case, having regard to the findings
recorded in the concluded civil proceedings and the limited
nature of the revenue proceedings, no such prejudice
warranting interference has been established. Consequently,

- 20 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


the failure of the learned Single Judge to separately discuss the
grievance regarding the denial of an opportunity of hearing
does not, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, by
itself, vitiate the impugned order.

25. In view of the foregoing discussion, Point No. 1 is
answered in the Negative , Point No. 2 is answered in the
Negative , and Point No. 3 is answered in the Negative.

26. For the reasons stated above, we find that the learned
Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition, having
regard to the findings recorded by the competent Civil Court in
the concluded proceedings. The appellant has failed to establish
any patent illegality, perversity, or other ground warranting
interference by this Court in the present intra-court appeal.

27. For the foregoing reasons, the following:
ORDER

a) The writ appeal is dismissed .

b) The impugned common order dated
16.07.2026 passed in W.P.No.103969/2023

- 21 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16706-DB
WA No. 100844 of 2026


CNR: KAHC020157142026


and the connected writ petitions are liable to
be affirmed.
No order as to cost.


Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(HEMA KULKARNI)
JUDGE

PMP
CT:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19