- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3593 WP No. 101336 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 101336 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: HASANSAB S/O JEEVANSAB GADAD AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST, R/O. ANNIGERI VILLAGE, ANNIGERI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT-582201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATH A. KARIGANNAVAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD-580001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SUB-DIVISION, DHARWAD-580001. 3. THE TAHASILDAR ANNIGERI TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT-582201. 4. RAZIYA BEGUM W/O KASIMSAB GADAD AGE.40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O.SHINGANAHALLI-581204, TQ. & DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R3; SRI. V.P. VADAVI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 28-11-2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-1 IN NO.RP-29/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-E & ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.27 17:00:44 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3593 WP No. 101336 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 3. 2. Learned counsel Sri V.P.Vadavi accepts notice for respondent No.4. 3. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: I. Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing the order dated 28-11-2024 passed by the Respondent-1 in No.RP- 29/2024 vide ANNEXURE-E & etc., II. Issue such other writ/order/direction as deemed fit and necessary under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice. 4. Submission made by the petitioner is that there is mistake which has occurred in the petition, what was required to be mentioned was a Will and that petitioner was claiming under the Will and not under a Gift Deed, as such the words ‘Gift Deed’ mentioned in the petition is considered to be a reference to a ‘Will’. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3593 WP No. 101336 of 2025 5. The claim of the petitioner is that one Mehabubi Kasimsab Gadad the mother of petitioner and respondent No.4 had executed a Will dated 21.10.2022 bequeathing the property in R.S.No.801 measuring 14 acre, 29 guntas situated at Annigeri village, Annigeri Taluk and Dharwad District to the petitioner. Thereafter, when the petitioner sought to get his name entered into in the revenue records, his sister respondent No.4 objected to the same and has also filed a suit in O.S.No.82/2023 for declaration and permanent injunction, wherein a temporary injunction has been granted restraining the petitioner from alienating the suit schedule property. 6. Petitioner having filed an application for mutation of his name in the revenue records, the Tahashildar directed the entry of name of the petitioner, which came to be challenged by filing an appeal by respondent No.4 before the 2nd respondent-Assistant - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3593 WP No. 101336 of 2025 Commissioner, who dismissed the appeal. Challenging the said order of the Tahashildar and Assistant Commissioner, respondent No.4 filed a revision in RP.No.29/2024. The 1st respondent- Deputy Commissioner taking note of the suit in O.S.no.82/2023 being pending had directed both parties to obtain necessary orders in the said suit and thereafter approach authorities for necessary mutation. It is challenging the same, petitioner is before this Court. 7. The relationship between the petitioner and respondent No.4 is admitted. Petitioner being the brother and respondent No.4 being the sister. Petitioner claiming that there is a Will executed in his favour, Respondent No.4 also claimed that there is another Will executed in her favour. There is a dispute between the brother and sister as regards which Will is valid which is the subject matter of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3593 WP No. 101336 of 2025 OS.No.82/2023, the rights of the parties would have to be determined in the said suit. 8. The property continues to stand in the name of mother and the entries of the name of either of the petitioner or the 4th respondent have not been made in the revenue records. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, inasmuch as the interest of both parties are preserved and taken care of by the Deputy Commissioner so as not permitting the alienation of the property by either the Petiitoner or respondent No.4 which could result in multiple proceedings as rightly observed by the Deputy Commissioner. Parties would be governed by the reserve of the suit in O.S.No.82/2023, there being no infirmity in the said order. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE CKK CT-VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 37