- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13817 WP No. 106264 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 106264 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: PRASAD KUSHAL SHETTY S/O KUSHAL SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. T-1, ROSE BLOCK, 3RD FLOOR, AKRUTI GARDEN, BHAVANI NAGAR, HUBBALLI-580 023, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR BURJI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD-580 001, TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD. 3. THE TAHASHILDAR, HUBBALLI-580 020, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.18 07:57:14 +0100 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13817 WP No. 106264 of 2025 4. REVENUE INSPECTOR, HUBBALLI-580 020, TQ. HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 5. M. RAJARAO S/O MALLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. LINGAPUR VILLAGE, POST: HANAGAWADI, TQ. HONNALLI, DIST. DAVANGERI-577 224. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION AND ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION TO, QUASH IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 10.12.2024 BEARING NO.RTS/AP/ID/264/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 PRODUCE AT ANNEXURE-D AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND 3 TO MUTATE THE NAME OF PETITIONER IN PURSUANCE OF SALE-DEED DATED 25.04.2019 BEARING DOCUMENT NO.HBN-1- 00643-2019-20 CD.NO.HBND218, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13817 WP No. 106264 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4. 2. Since no relief is claimed against respondent No.5, notice to respondent No.5 is dispensed with. 3. Petitioner claims that he purchased the property in question from respondent No.5 under registered sale deed dated 25.04.2019, which is marked at Annexure-A. It is his submission that a suit is pending in O.S. No.226/2019 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi among the family members of his vendor’s vendor and it is further stated that the petitioner got impleaded in the said suit and pursuant to the objection filed by the petitioner, the ex parte interim order restraining alienation is vacated. Copy of the said order is marked at Annexure-C. 4. In terms of the impugned order at Annexure-D, the Assistant Commissioner has refused to enter the name of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13817 WP No. 106264 of 2025 the petitioner in the property records on the premise that Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is violated. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the revenue authorities are bound to enter the name in the property records as per the registered sale deed and if there is any violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act namely Section 95, the course open for the revenue authorities is to take action as contemplated under the said provision or other provisions of the Act of 1964 and not to reject the certification of mutation based on the registered sale deed. 6. Learned Government Advocate would oppose the petition on the premise that the violation of Section 95 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is noticed by the Tahasildar pursuant to the report submitted by the Revenue Inspector and in addition, a suit is also pending, as such, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13817 WP No. 106264 of 2025 the Assistant Commissioner is justified in dismissing the appeal. 7. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 8. The revenue authorities are bound to enter the name of the petitioner in the property records in respect of duly registered sale deeds. This is the settled possession of law. If there is any violation of the provisions relating to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 namely Section 95, that cannot be a ground to reject the certification of the mutation entry, based on registered sale deed. The mutation entry has to be certified in case the sale deed is duly registered. 9. It is not in dispute that the sale deed is duly registered. After registering the petitioner's name in the property records, the concerned revenue officials may initiate appropriate action as contemplated under the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13817 WP No. 106264 of 2025 provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 if it is found that provisions of the said Act are violated. 10. The pendency of the suit by the petitioner’s vendor among their family members is not a ground to reject the appeal. The petitioner will acquire right over the property subject to result of the said suit. 11. Hence, the following : ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 10.12.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, marked at Annexure-D is quashed. (iii) Direction is issued to the jurisdictional Tahasildar to certify the mutation entry in the name of the petitioner in respect of the petition property in terms of registered sale deed dated 25.04.2019. (iv) In case there is any violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13817 WP No. 106264 of 2025 authorities are at liberty to initiate action as advised in law with due notice to the concerned parties. (v) It is made clear that this order shall not be construed as having reflected any opinion on the petitioner's claim in the pending suit in O.S.No.226/2019. (vi) The said suit shall be decided without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE NAA CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 41