- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4348 WP No. 81992 of 2013 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. 81992 OF 2013 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: GURUNATHAGOUDA A/F NARAPPAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE and SERVICE IN KSRTC, R/O. NALWADI, TALUKA: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. G. B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. GOUDAPPAGOUDA S/O. RANGANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NALWADI, TALUKA: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. SHRIPADAGOUDA S/O. RANGANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR, AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NALWADI, TALUKA: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. 3. HANUMANTHAGOUDA S/O RANGANAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR, AGE: 56 YEARS, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4348 WP No. 81992 of 2013 OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NALWADI, TALUKA: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. (ORDER DATED 05.07.2016 R5 to R8 ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED R3) 4. SMT. KAMALAVVA W/O. CHINNAPPAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: NALWADI, TALUKA: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. (ORDER DATED 03.04.2018 R5 to R9 ARE THE LRS OF DECEASED R4) 5. PRAKASHGOUDA S/O. CHINNAPPAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NALWADI, TALUKA: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. 6. MANJUNATHAGOUDA S/O CHINNAPPAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR, AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: POLICE CONSTABLE, R/O: POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, DHARWAD. 7. SATISHGOUDA S/O. CHINNAPPAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NALWADI, TALUKA: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. 8. VENKANAGOUDA S/O. CHINNAPPAGOUDA DODDAGOUDAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: NALWADI, TALUKA: NAVALAGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4348 WP No. 81992 of 2013 9. SMT. VENKAVVA W/O. NINGARADDI HEBASUR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: CHIKKAHANDIGOL, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG. 10. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD. 11. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DIVISION, DHARWAD. 12. REVENUE INSPECTOR ANNIGERI, TALUK: NAVALGUND, DIST: DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R10 TO R12; R1, R2, R5, R6, R7, R8 & R9 ARE SERVED; R5 TO R8 ARE TREATED AS LR’S OF DECEASED R3; R5 TO R9 ARE TREATED AS LR’S OF R4) ------- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DATED 16/07/2013 IN NO.RTS.RA.CR-06/2011-12 VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DATED 26/04/2010 IN NO.RTS.AP.196/2007-08 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND THE MUTATION ENTRY EFFECTED BY THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, NAVALGUND, IN M.R.NO.3/2007-08 DATED 06/07/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4348 WP No. 81992 of 2013 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is before this Court this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner Dharwad, dated 16.07.2013 in No.RTS.Ra.CR-06/2011-12 vide Annexure-D and the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad dated 26.04.2010 in No.RTS.AP.196/2007-08 vide Annexure-C and the mutation entry effected by the Revenue Inspector, Navalgund, in M.R.No.3/2007-08 dated 06.07.2007 vide Annexure-B, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard Smt. G. B. Naik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondents No.10 to 12. Perused the materials on record. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that, he is the adopted son of Narappagouda Doddagoudar, and after - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4348 WP No. 81992 of 2013 his death, the petitioner succeeded to the property in question. He is challenging the order produced as per Annexure-B, dated 06.07.2007, passed by the Revenue Inspector, effecting M.R.No.3/2007-08. He is also challenging the orders at Annexures ‘C’ & ‘D’, passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner respectively, confirming the mutation entry. 4. The materials on record disclose that the respondents have filed the suit in O.S.No.158/1989, seeking declaration of their title and for a permanent injunction, on the basis of the Will dated 17.07.1981, executed by Narappagouda, who is claimed by the petitioner as his adoptive father. It is stated that the mother of the petitioner, i.e., the wife of Narappagouda, filed O.S.No.190/1989, seeking declaration of her title over the property and for permanent injunction. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4348 WP No. 81992 of 2013 5. Initially, the suit filed by the respondents was decreed in their favour, declaring that they are the owners in possession of the property, and granting permanent injunction, while dismissing the suit filed by the adoptive mother of the petitioner. R.A.Nos.77/1991 and 78/1991 were filed by the adoptive mother of the petitioner, and it is stated that both the appeals were allowed, and the matters were remanded back to the Trial Court, with a direction to club both the cases together to dispose of the same in accordance with the law. Accordingly, the Trial Court clubbed both the cases and disposed of the same under a common judgment, again decreeing the suit filed by the respondents and dismissing the suit filed by the mother of the petitioner. 6. It is stated that, even though two suits were disposed of, only one second appeal in RSA No.349/2004, came to be filed by the petitioner, which was also dismissed as per the judgment dated 20.02.2017. In the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4348 WP No. 81992 of 2013 meantime, the Revenue Inspector effected mutation entry on 16.07.2013, as per Annexure-B. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. The discussions held above disclose that the mutation entry at Annexure-B was made by the Revenue Inspector on the basis of the decree passed by the Civil Court in the original suit. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On the other hand, it is her contention that the petitioner has preferred SLP before the Hon’ble Apex Court challenging dismissal of RSA No.349/2004, but no materials are placed before the Court in support of such contention. 8. Under these circumstances, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition. Hence the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11