- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1715 WP No. 202194 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 202194 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SHAH AMJAD MOHIUDDIN QUADRI S/O SHAH MOHIUDDIN QUADRI @ SAFDAR MOHIUDDIN QUADRI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KHADRIAPURE, H.NO.5-2194, GOLEKHANA, DISTRICT BIDAR – 585 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN R.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001, BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BIDAR – 585 401. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BIDAR SUB DIVISION, BIDAR – 585 101. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, BIDAR – 585 401. Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1715 WP No. 202194 of 2024 5. M/S HYDERABAD KARNATAKA EDUCATION SOCIETY, HEAD OFFICE, PDA ENGINEERING COLLEGE CAMPUS, AIWAN-E-SHAHI, KALABURAGI – 585 401, BY ITS PRESIDENT. 6. THE PRINCIPAL, B.V. BHOOMREDDY COLLEGE, BIDAR – 585 401. 7. REVENUE INSPECTOR, BIDAR, TQ: BIDAR, DIST: BIDAR – 585 401. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R4 & R7; SRI RAVI B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5 AND R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE ORDER OF RESPONDENT NO.4 DATED 06.04.2023 IN LAQ/CR-195/1961- 62 VIDE ANNEXURE-E, ORDER OF RESPONDENT NO.3 DATED 14-07-2023 IN REV/APPEAL/CR09/2023-24/1063-65 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ORDER OF RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 10.10.2023 IN COM/APPEAL/RP-73/2023-24 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE ENTRIES THAT EXISTED PRIOR TO 2021-22, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1715 WP No. 202194 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 and 7 and learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 and 6. 2. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Tashildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner in respect of change of mutation pertaining to property bearing Sy.No.9a (9/1) of Mailoor village, Taluk and District Bidar. 3. The petitioner contends that said property originally belonged to his ancestors and the petitioner’s name continued in the property records till 2022. Thereafter, the entries changed by entering the name of respondent No.5. Hence, the dispute is raised before the Tashildar, Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner’s claim to enter his name in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1715 WP No. 202194 of 2024 the property records was rejected. Hence, the petitioner is aggrieved by the aforementioned orders. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that respondent No.5 is claiming right over the property based on the alleged land acquisition proceedings in its favour said to have been taken place in the year 1965- 1966 under the Mysore Land Acquisition Act. 5. Learned counsel would submit that the Mysore Land Acquisition Act was repealed when the alleged land acquisition proceedings were initiated under the said Act as such, the entire proceeding is one without jurisdiction. He would also submit that there is no final order or award passed. If at all such proceeding is valid at the most there was only a proposal to pass an award. Thus, he would contend that name of respondent No.5 cannot be entered in the property records based on the alleged land acquisition proceedings. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the petitioner has also filed a suit for - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1715 WP No. 202194 of 2024 declaration and injunction and same is pending consideration before the Civil Court and during the pendency of the proceedings, there was no need to change the property records. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 and 6, on the other hand, would contend that the land acquisition proceedings is valid, the petitioner’s ancestors claimed higher compensation by seeking reference and higher compensation was paid, despite this, the petitioner is now making a claim that there is no land acquisition. It is his further submission that respondent No.5 has already constructed the building ever since the land was acquired and the claim of the petitioner is totally erroneous. He would also submit that the right, title, interest, if any in favour of petitioner has to be established before the competent Court and no fault can be found with the order passed by the Tashildar, Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1715 WP No. 202194 of 2024 8. This Court considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 9. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there appears to be a proposal to pass an award and no final award is produced by the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.5 and 6 has produced the copy of the final award said to have been passed pursuant to the land acquisition proceedings. This Court has perused the copy of the said award marked at Annexure-R4. 10. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 has also produced the copy of the order passed in the reference proceedings where the compensation was enhanced. The documents at Annexures R4 and R7 are disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the premise that despite a direction was issued in the civil Court, the respondents have not produced the said documents. At this juncture, the prima facie consideration - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1715 WP No. 202194 of 2024 of the documents would reveals that award is passed and reference is sought. 11. Though the record of rights for a long period of time in column No.9 continued in the name of petitioner’s ancestor and the name of respondent No.5 that itself is not a ground for the petitioner to contend that there is no acquisition of the property in the light of documents which reveal that the order is passed on a reference sought by the ancestors of the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the order passed by the revenue authorities cannot said to be erroneous. 12. However, it is to be observed that this Court has not declared the title of respondent No.5 in this writ petition by dismissing the present writ petition and has not decided the claim of the petitioner relating to the title. The claim of petitioner, if any, over the property in dispute has to be decided in a competent Court. In case, the Civil Court is competent to decide the claim of the petitioner, the said suit shall be decided without being influenced by - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1715 WP No. 202194 of 2024 the observations made hereinabove. This observation made in the present petition is only confined to continuation of name of respondent No.5 in the property records without prejudice to the contentions of the petitioner. 13. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8