Karnataka High Court
Sharanappa S/O Veeranna Bevingidad vs Smt Hanumavva W/O Sanna Hanumantappa ... on 26 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16505
WP No. 108957 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 108957 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. SHARANAPPA
S/O VEERPANNA BEVINGIDAD,
AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREBOMANNAL VILLAGE-583 237,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL.
2. BASAPPA @ ADIBASAPPA
S/O VEERPANNA BEVINGIDAD,
AGE. 57 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREBOMANNAL VILLAGE-583 237,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR B. HORATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. HANUMAVVA
W/O SANNA HANUMANTAPPA HUNSIYAL,
AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN R/O. HIREBOMANNAL VILLAGE-583 237,
KATTIMANI
Digitally signed by
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL.
CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.11.28 11:58:28
+0530
2. SMT. SHIVAPUTRAMMA
D/O SANNA HANUMANTAPPA HUNSIYAL
(W/O NAGAPPA GANGANNAVAR),
AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREBOMANNAL VILLAGE-583 237,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL.
3. PAKEERAJJA
S/O SANNA HANUMANTAPPA HUNSIYAL,
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREBOMANNAL VILLAGE-583 237,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16505
WP No. 108957 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. RAMESH
S/O SANNA HANUMANTAPPA HUNSIYAL,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREBOMANNAL VILLAGE-583 237,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL.
5. SMT. LAKAMMA
D/O SANNA HANUMANTAPPA HUNSIYAL,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREBOMANNAL VILLAGE-583 237,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL.
6. SMT. MANJULA
D/O SANNA HANUMANTAPPA HUNSIYAL
(W/O SANNA HANUMANTAPPA POOJARI),
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. BAIRANAYAKANA HALLI-583 236,
TQ. YALBURGA AND DIST. KOPPAL.
7. BALAPPA
S/O MUDI HANUMAPPA MUKKANNANAVAR,
AGE. 72 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREBOMANNAL VILLAGE-583 237,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL.
8. VEERANNA S/O MALKAJAPPA BEVINGIDAD,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREBOMANNAL VILLAGE-583 237,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL.
9. HANUMANTAPPA S/O MALKAJAPPA BEVINGIDAD,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIREBOMMANAL VILLAGE-583 237,
TQ. AND DIST. KOPPAL.
... RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON
I.A. NO.8 DATED 06-NOV-2025 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE
AND CJM, KOPPAL IN O.S. NO.25/2018, PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-
F.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:16505
WP No. 108957 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. The petition is filed assailing the order dated 06.11.2025 appointing the Court Commissioner in a suit for declaration, possession and injunction.
3. The plaintiffs have filed a suit alleging encroachment of the suit property by the defendants. The plaintiffs relied upon the report of the Assistant Director of Land Records (ADLR), which was prepared before the suit is filed. The survey sketch is marked to examine the ADLR, summons was issued. ADLR did not turn up despite service of summons. Hence, the plaintiffs filed application to appoint a Survey Commissioner to measure the property to substantiate their contention relating to alleged encroachment by the defendants.
4. Since the defendants have objected to the report of the ADLR which is marked, the plaintiffs sought the appointment of the Court Commissioner to prove the contention relating to -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16505 WP No. 108957 of 2025 HC-KAR encroachment and they probably felt that they could not prove the report as the ADLR did not turn up for examination-in-chief.
5. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has allowed the application for appointment of the Survey Commissioner to measure the suit properly.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the application is filed at a belated stage when the case is posted for arguments and having marked the earlier ADLR report, the Court could not have appointed a Survey Commissioner to measure the property.
7. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.
8. It is indeed true that the earlier report of the ADLR is produced and marked by the plaintiffs. However, the ADLR did not turn up to lead evidence on the report. Since the defendants have taken a contention that the report is incorrect, probably the plaintiffs wanted to examine the ADLR to prove the correctness of the report. Since the ADLR did not turn up, the plaintiffs were -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:16505 WP No. 108957 of 2025 HC-KAR left with no other choice of moving one more application to appoint the surveyor to measure the property.
9. Under these circumstances, the Trial Court has passed the impugned order allowing the application for appointment of the Survey Commissioner.
10. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the petition.
11. Hence, the following:
ORDER i. Writ petition is dismissed.
ii. The guidelines laid down in Shadaksharappa v. Kumari Vijayalaxmi and others1, shall be followed by the Trial Court to the extent possible.
iii. The petitioners and respondents are permitted to file memo of queries to be answered by the ADLR.
Sd/-
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE CLK/CT:BCK 1 ILR 2023 KAR 3983