Laxmi vs Technical

LAXMI vs Technical

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Dharwad Decided Jan 12, 2026

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1501739

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1501739
Court: Karnataka Dharwad High Court
Judge: K.S.Hemalekha
Decided On: Jan 12, 2026
Case Number: WP/104019/2014

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

LAXMI

Respondent

Technical

Excerpt

.....pertaining to the land bearing sy.no.1 measuring 15 acres 2 guntas situated at rajoor village of yelburga taluk, dist: koppal as per annexure-g and etc. this writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘b’ group this day, order was made therein as under: -3- coram: the hon'ble mrs justice k.s.hemalekhaoral order1. the petitioner has approached this court calling inquestion the endorsement dated 19.02.2014 issued by respondent no.1 (annexure-l), and the consequential form no.10 issued by respondent no.2 (annexure-g), in respect of land bearing sy.no.1, measuring 15 acres 2 guntas situated at rajoor village, yelburga taluk, koppal.2. the impugned endorsement (annexure-l) came to beissued by respondent no.1 - the technical assistant to the office of the deputy commissioner, on the ground that the appeal preferred by the petitioner could not be entertained owing to the pendency of the civil suit in o.s.no.4 of 2013.3. heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned aga for respondents no.1 to 4, and learned counsel for other respondents. perused the records. -4-4. it is not in dispute that, o.s.no.4 of 2013, instituted by the petitioner against the respondents seeking declaration and injunction, came to be decreed byjudgment and decree dated 26.07.2018. it is furtherundisputed that the appeal preferred by the respondents in r.a.no.80 of 2022 was dismissed, thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial court in o.s. no.4 of 2013. consequently, the civil adjudication between the parties has attained finality.5. in view of the conclusion of the civil proceedings andthe finality attained thereto, the very basis on which respondent no.1 declined to entertain the appeal no longer subsists. once the civil dispute stood conclusively resolved, respondent no.1 is required to consider on its own merits, in accordance with law.6. in that view of the matter, the impugned endorsement dated 19.02.2014 requires quashment......

Full Judgment

-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 104019 OF 2014 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. LAXMI W/O. PRAKASH GADDAD (D/O. BALAPPA NAGOJI), AGE: 29 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ADOOR, TQ: YELBURGA, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO THE OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER & EX-OFFICIO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, KOPPAL, DIST: KOPPAL.
2. THE TAHASILDAR, YELBURGA TALUK, Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL. Location: HIGH COURT OF GIRIJA A. KARNATAKA BYAHATTI DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.20 +0530
3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR, NADA KARYALAYA, KUKANOOR, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.
4. THE TALUKA SURVEYOR, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, YELBURGA, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL.
5. SHRI. NINGAPPA S/O. LATE MUDUKAPPA NAGOJI, AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ADOOR, TQ: YELBURGA, DIST: KOPPAL. -2-
6. SHRI. FAKKIRAPPA S/O. SOMAPPA CHALAGERI, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CHALAGERI, TQ: KUSHTAGI,
7. SHRI. RAMESH S/O. HANUMAPPA KURI, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HALAKERI, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG.
8. SHRI. TUKARAM S/O. SHIVAPPA BAJANTRI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. RAJOOR, TQ: YELBURGA, …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SIR. DINESH M.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R8; SRI. H.N.GULARADDI, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7) --- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 19.02.2014 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN BHU NI KO/TAM/APPEAL/26/2023NO.10 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN FILE NO.RK/801/GSC/505095/13-14-YM/KR/393/12-13 PERTAINING TO THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.1 MEASURING 15 ACRES 2 GUNTAS SITUATED AT RAJOOR VILLAGE OF YELBURGA TALUK, DIST: KOPPAL AS PER ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: -3- CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner has approached this Court calling in

question the endorsement dated 19.02.2014 issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure-L), and the consequential Form No.10 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-G), in respect of land bearing Sy.No.1, measuring 15 Acres 2 guntas situated at Rajoor Village, Yelburga Taluk, Koppal.

2. The impugned endorsement (Annexure-L) came to be

issued by respondent No.1 - the Technical Assistant to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, on the ground that the appeal preferred by the petitioner could not be entertained owing to the pendency of the civil suit in O.S.No.4 of 2013.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 4, and learned counsel for other respondents. Perused the records. -4-

4. It is not in dispute that, O.S.No.4 of 2013, instituted by the petitioner against the respondents seeking declaration and injunction, came to be decreed by

judgment and decree dated 26.07.2018. It is further

undisputed that the appeal preferred by the respondents in R.A.No.80 of 2022 was dismissed, thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S. No.4 of 2013. Consequently, the civil adjudication between the parties has attained finality.

5. In view of the conclusion of the civil proceedings and

the finality attained thereto, the very basis on which respondent No.1 declined to entertain the appeal no longer subsists. Once the civil dispute stood conclusively resolved, respondent No.1 is required to consider on its own merits, in accordance with law.

6. In that view of the matter, the impugned endorsement dated 19.02.2014 requires quashment. -5-

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsement dated 19.02.2014 issued by respondent No.1 (Annexure-L) is hereby quashed. iii. The revenue authorities shall affect necessary entries in the revenue records strictly in accordance with the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, which has attained finality, on production of certified copy of the judgment and decree, within a period of four weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of judgment and decree by the petitioner. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61

Same Court & Year Karnataka Dharwad · 2026 Same Parties LAXMI vs Technical Same Judge K.S.Hemalekha