- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16803 WP No. 103519 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.103519 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SMT. ZAHIDA W/O. SHERKHAN INAMDAR, AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD, R/O. CTS NO.3957/77, KALI AMBRAI, BELAGAVI, REP. BY HER PA HOLDER, JAFERKHAN S/O. AMEERKHAN TADKOD, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. #2A/133, 2ND CROSS, SADHANAKERI, DHARWAD-580 008. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI-590 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OFFICE, BELAGAVI-590 001. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, TALUK OFFICE, BELAGAVI-590 001, BELAGAVI. 4. SMT. LAXMI W/O ASHOK LAGADE, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. TANGADI GALLI, BELAGAVI-590 001. 5. SMT. SHOBHA W/O BASVANT LAD, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: H.NO. 968/D, LAD NAGAR, MACHE, BELAGAVI-590 014. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.10 16:35:45 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16803 WP No. 103519 of 2024 6. SMT. KSHAMA W/O AVINASH PATIL, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O: MIDC, MIRAGAON, MIRA ROAD, EAST THANE, MUMBAI-400 603. 7. SATISH S/O GOVIND KANGRALKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: H.NO. 859, SHRI HARI NAGAR, MUTAGA VILLAGE, TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI-591 124. 8. NARAYAN S/O GOVIND KANGALKAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 4691, INDIRA COLONY, KACHERI ROAD, BELAGAVI-590 001. 9 SMT. REKHA W/O PARASHURAM GADAKARI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, K/O: FLAT 02, SUNSHINE APARTMENTS, MARATHA COLONY, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590 006. 10. ASIF S/O SHERKHAN INAMDAR, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: CTS NO. 3957/77, KALI AMBRAI, BELAGAVI-590 001. 11. SMT. ASMA D/O. SHERKHAN INAMDAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: CTS NO.3957/77, KALI AMBRAI, BELAGAVI-590 001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R10 AND R11 IS DISPENSED WITH; SRI. RAM P. GHORPADE AND SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATES FOR R4 TO R9) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NO.R.B./RTA/266/2023-24 DATED 11/06/2024 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-L. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16803 WP No. 103519 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents. 2. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 11.06.2024 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, who in exercise of power under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ‘the Act of 1964’) had allowed the Revision Petition filed by the contesting respondents and directed the names of the contesting respondents to be entered in the property records pursuant to an ex-parte decree passed in favour of the contesting respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the decree which is passed ex-parte against the petitioner, has nullified the registered sale deed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16803 WP No. 103519 of 2024 in favour of the petitioner and a Miscellaneous Case No.40/2016 is filed to set-aside ex-parte decree and said Miscellaneous Petition is pending since 2016 before the competent Court, which passed the decree. Thus, he would contend that respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner was right in passing an order that the name of the petitioner is to be retained in the property records pursuant to the registered sale deed subject to the result of the Miscellaneous Petition and the suit. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting private respondents would urge that the suit is decreed holding that the registered sale deed is invalid, as such, respondent No.3-Tahasildar is justified in passing an order recording the names of the contesting respondents in the property records. Thus, he would contend that respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner is also right in setting aside - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16803 WP No. 103519 of 2024 the order of respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner. 5. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 6. This case is all about the conflict between a registered sale deed in the name of the petitioner and the decree which is passed in favour of the contesting respondents which has invalidated the said sale deed. 7. It is not in dispute that the decree passed is an ex- parte decree and Miscellaneous Petition is filed before the competent Civil Court to set-aside the said ex-parte decree and same is pending unfortunately for the last 9 years. 8. This being the position, the Court is of the view that respondent No.3-Tahasildar and as well as respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner were - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16803 WP No. 103519 of 2024 justified in giving effect to the decree, which is also the mandate of Section 132(3) of the Act of 1964. 9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that before the suit is filed, the property is gifted to respondents No.10 and 11 of the present petition. Thus, it is his contention that those persons are also necessary parties to the suit and decree is obtained behind their back. Since respondents No.10 and 11 have not filed any petition challenging the decree, the Court is not inclined to pass an order for restoration of the names of respondents No.10 and 11 in the property records as there is no such plea made by respondents No.10 and 11. 10. Under these circumstances, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with order passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner. 11. Hence the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16803 WP No. 103519 of 2024 ORDER i. The petition is dismissed without expressing anything on the merits of the Miscellaneous Petition pending before the Trial Court or the claim of respondents No.10 and 11, who claim to have acquired the property under the registered gift deed dated 29.02.2012. ii. The Trial Court before which the Miscellaneous Petition No.40/2016, is pending shall decide the petition as expeditiously as possible. Both parties shall cooperate for disposal of the said petition. iii. The contesting respondents shall not alienate the property or create any third party charge over the property till the Miscellaneous Petition is decided in accordance with law. iv. It is made clear that the observations made in the order passed by respondent No.1-Deputy - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16803 WP No. 103519 of 2024 Commissioner or Order passed by this Court, should not be construed as having reflected anything on the merits of the claim of the petitioner. The same shall be adjudicated in the appropriate Civil Court. v. It is submitted that the donees under the gift deed dated 29.02.2012 have filed a suit in O.S.No.438 of 2020. The said suit shall be decided without being influenced by any of the observations made here, as the Court has not decided rights of the parties to the said proceedings. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 30