- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4372 WP No. 105146 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 105146 OF 2017 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. YELLAWWA KALLOLEPPA WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. SMT.MAHANANDA KALLOLEPPA PATROTI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MAMADAPUR, TQ and DIST: VIJAYAPURA. 3. SMT.RESHMA MOHAN THODKAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: KUNTEMAKHAND, TQ: JATH, DIST: SANGLI, (MAHARASHTRA). 4. SRI.TIPPANNA KALLOLEPPA WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 5. SMT.SHOBA KALLOLEPPA WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4372 WP No. 105146 of 2017 TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 6. SRI.MAHANTESH KALLOLEPPA WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 7. SRI.VINOD KALLOLEPPA WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 8. SRI. AMAR KALLOLEPPA WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 9. SMT.HOOLIGEVVA LAKSHMAN WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 10. SMT.HANUMAVVA RAJU WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4372 WP No. 105146 of 2017 11. SRI. PRABHU LAKSHMAN WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 12. SRI. BHIMSHI LAKSHMAN WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 13. KUM. RENUKA D/O. LAKSHMAN WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 14. SMT.PARAWWA RAMAPPA WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 15. SRI. ARJUN RAMAPPA WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 16. SRI. SHIDRAM S/O. RAMAPPA WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI, - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4372 WP No. 105146 of 2017 MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOTE. 17. SRI.RAJUN S/O. RAMAPPA WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. 18. SRI.HANAMANTH S/O. RAMAPPA WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. THE PETITIONERS 1 TO 3, 5 TO 17 AND 19 TO 21 ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR JOINT POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDERS, THE PETITIONER NO.4 & 18. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT, DISTI: BAGALKOT. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JAMAKHANDI SUB DIVISION, JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. SRI. YAMANAPPA HANUMANTH WADDAR ALIAS BANDIWADDAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIR LRS. 3A. SMT. LAXMIBAI W/O. YAMANAPPA BANDIWADDAR, (WIFE), - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4372 WP No. 105146 of 2017 AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR SADHUNGUDI, WADDARAGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3B. TIMMANNA S/O. YAMANAPPA BANDIWADDAR (SON), AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR SADHUNGUDI, WADDARAGALLI, MAHALINGAPUR DIST: BAGALKOT. 3C. GANGAPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA BANDIWADDAR (SON), AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR SADHUNGUDI, WADDARAGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3D. CHANNAPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA BANDIWADDAR (SON), AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR SADHUNGUDI, WADDARAGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3E. HULAGAPPA S/O. YAMANAPPA BANDIWADDAR (SON), AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR SADHUNGUDI, WADDARAGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3F. PRASHURAM S/O. YAMANAPPA BANDIWADDAR (SON), AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4372 WP No. 105146 of 2017 R/O. NEAR SADHUNGUDI, WADDARAGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3G. IRAWATI W/O. LAKKAPPA KONNUR (DAUGHTER), AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. NEAR SADHUNGUDI, WADDARAGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, DIST: BAGALKOT. 4. SRI. HANUMANTH TIPPANNA WADDAR @ BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIMMAD, TQ: JAMAKHANDI. REPRESENTED BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEYY HOLDER, SRI.LAKKAPPA HANUMANTH BANDIWADDAR @ WADDAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHIMMAD, TQ: JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 5. SMT. LAKSHMI NAGAPPA WADDAR @ BADDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O:WADDAR COLONY, VIKAS NAGAR, MUMBAI (MAHARASHTRA). 6. SMT.GANGAWWA NAGAPPA WADDAR @ BADDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC : HOUSEHOLD, R/O:SAL WADDAR COLONY, VIKAS NAGAR, MUMBAI(MAHARASHTRA). - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4372 WP No. 105146 of 2017 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. V.M. SHEELVANT, ADVOCATE FOR R8; SRI. B.V. KERUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3(A TO G); R4(A), R4(B), R5 & R6 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH R4(C), R4(D), R4(E) AND R7, ARE HELD SUFFICIENT) ----- THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 READ WITH ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:25.05.2017, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CASE NO.RP/02/2016, THE CERTIFIED COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-D. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING-B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA 7. SMT.LAKSHMIBAI MAHALINGA WADDAR @BANDIWADDAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: WADDARGALLI, MAHALINGPUR, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4372 WP No. 105146 of 2017 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 25.05.2017, passed by respondent No.1 bearing No.RP/02/2016 produced as per Annexure-D. 2. Heard Sri.S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned AGA for the respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri.V.M.Sheelvant, learned counsel for the respondent No.8, Sri.B.V.Kerur, learned counsel for the respondent No.3(A to G). Perused the materials on record. 3. On consideration of the rival contentions and on perusal of the materials that are placed before this Court, it is found that the original propositus is one Tamanna Timanna Waddar. The petitioners and respondent No.3 claim to be the members of joint family claiming rights over the disputed properties. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4372 WP No. 105146 of 2017 4. It is the contention of respondent Nos.3 and 4 that even before the disputed mutation entry Nos.6558 and 6796, the names of respondent Nos.3 and 4 were shown in the revenue records pertaining to the disputed properties. It is their further contention that, there was a partition amongst the family members and the disputed properties have been allotted to the shares of respondent Nos.3 and 4. On the basis of the application filed by respondent Nos.3 and 4, M.E.No.6558 was effected on 1/08/1999 and M.E.No. 6796 on 1/03/2000 by the Tashildar concerned. The said mutation entries effected in the year 1999-2000 were challenged by the petitioners before the Assistant Commissioner during 2016, and the appeal was allowed to set aside the mutation entries after lapse of 15 years. 5. It is interesting to note that the petitioners have filed the suit in O.S.No.194 of 2013 prior to preferring of the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, claiming 1/3rd share in the disputed properties. The suit is said to - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4372 WP No. 105146 of 2017 be renumbered, and is now pending in O.S.No.146 of 2022. It is also stated that the legal representatives of respondent No.3 have filed another suit in O.S.No.320 of 2022, seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners. It is stated that both the suits are pending consideration before the Civil Court. In the meantime, an appeal was preferred before the Assistant Commissioner in 2016, that is after a lapse of 15 years, and the Assistant Commissioner set aside the mutation entries, which was challenged by respondent Nos.3 and 4 before the Deputy Commissioner, who passed the impugned order by allowing the appeal and restoring the mutation entries. However, it is observed that since the civil suit for partition and separate possession is pending before the Civil Court, the findings of the Civil Court will be binding on both the parties and the mutation entries in question which is restored under the impugned order will be subject to the result of the civil suit. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4372 WP No. 105146 of 2017 6. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the Deputy Commissioner, even though observed that the rights of the parties are subject to the result of the suit pending before the Civil Court, has restored the mutation entries. But the fact remains that the mutation entries were effected way back in 1999-2000, and it is the grievance of the petitioners that the partition deed relied on by respondent Nos.3 and 4 was a concocted document and thus, no rights have been acquired by respondent Nos.3 and 4 under the said document. Whether the said partition deed is concocted or it is a genuine document is to be considered by Civil Court having competent jurisdiction. Therefore, I am of the opinion that it is unnecessary to venture into an enquiry regarding the rival contentions of the parties, as the Civil Court is dealing with two suits i.e. OS No.146 of 2022 and O.S.No.320 of 2022 i.e. for partition and separate possession, and for permanent injunction respectively. By the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner had restored the mutation entries, which - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4372 WP No. 105146 of 2017 were in existence since 1999-2000. I do not find any illegality in said order as the Deputy Commissioner has categorically stated that the decree to be passed by the Civil Court will be binding on both the parties. Hence, the petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB/CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15