- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6076 WP No. 111904 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.111904 OF 2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SMT. SUNDRAVVA W/O. ASHOKRADDI DHONI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: SAMBAPUR, TQ: GADAG, DIST: GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.G.KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. GIRISH S/O. CHANNABASAYYA HIREMATH AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NEAR NELAMMA TAYIE MATHAD, ADHARSHA NAGAR, GADAG, DIST: GADAG. 2. SRI. SHIVARADDI SOMAPPA @ SOMARADDI NAGANUR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O: NEAR NELAMMA TAYIE MATHAD, ADHARSHA NAGAR, GADAG, DIST: GADAG. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GADAG, DIST: GADAG. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GADAG, DIST: GADAG. 5. THE DEPUTY THASHILDAR NADAKACHERI, BETAGERI, DIST: GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.S.BETURMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. K.L.PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2; NOTICE TO R3 TO R5 ARE SERVED) Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.04.09 15:15:06 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6076 WP No. 111904 of 2019 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 IN RTS/RA/SR-21/2016-17 PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/ RESPONDENT NO.3 GADAG AT VIDE ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed assailing the order of respondent No.3/Deputy Commissioner evidenced at Annexure-A, wherein the Deputy Commissioner exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 136 (3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘KLR Act’ for brevity) has directed to mutate the name of respondent No.1 to the petition land, which would be subject to the outcome of the pending suit in O.S.No.109/2011. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 and 2. 3. The available records clearly establish that the petitioner’s ancestors had alienated the petition land in favour - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6076 WP No. 111904 of 2019 of the father of respondent No.2 through a registered sale deed dated 07.07.1978. Subsequently, the present petitioner instituted a comprehensive civil suit in O.S.No.109/2011, seeking specific performance and re-conveyance of the said land, purportedly on the basis of a re-conveyance agreement allegedly executed in the year 2008. During the pendency of this civil suit, respondent No.1 is stated to have purchased the suit property from respondent No.2’s family. The petitioner has opposed the mutation of the name of respondent No.1 in the revenue records, asserting that respondent No.1 is a pendente lite purchaser and, therefore, not entitled to any mutation in his favour. However, this contention appears to be misconceived. Given that the petitioner's ancestors had already parted with the property under a valid and registered sale deed as far back as in 1978, the petitioner does not possess any independent right, title, or interest in the land at present. As such, unless and until the petitioner obtains a decree in his favour in the pending civil suit in O.S. No.109/2011, he lacks the necessary legal standing to object to or challenge the mutation proceedings undertaken in favour of respondent No.1. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6076 WP No. 111904 of 2019 4. Notwithstanding the above, it is important to note that the rights of respondent No.1 in the property, having been acquired during the pendency of the litigation, shall be subject to the doctrine of lis pendens as enshrined under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Consequently, any right, title, or interest that respondent No.1 may claim in the petition land will be conditional upon the final outcome of the civil suit in O.S. No.109/2011. In the event the petitioner succeeds in establishing his claim and secures a decree for re-conveyance of the property, he would be legally entitled to have his name restored in the RTC in respect of the petition land. Until such adjudication takes place, the mutation entry in favour of respondent No.1 cannot be held to be illegal or without basis, but it shall remain subject to the final adjudication in the said suit. 5. These significant details are rightly examined by respondent No.3-Deputy Commissioner. Once there is a registered document, right is accrued under Section 128 and 129 of the KLR Act. The revenue officials under Section 128 and 129 of the KLR Act, have no discretion, but to effect change of Khata by taking cognizance of the registered sale deed. If there - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6076 WP No. 111904 of 2019 is a conveyance under a proper document, there is a mandatory duty cast on the revenue officials. Therefore, the order of respondent No.3- Deputy Commissioner clearly aligns with the mandate provided under Sections 128 and 129 of the KLR Act. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence. The writ petition being devoid of merits stands dismissed. However, this order will not come in the way of petitioner to seek change of Khata in the event petitioner succeeds in pending suit bearing O.S.No.109/2011. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE AM/- Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0