- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5815 WP No. 101309 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 101309 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI. VIRUPAKSHAPPA S/O. YALLAPPAGOUDA PATIL, AGE ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O MISHRIKOTI, TQ. KALGHATAGI, HALIVASTI, RON, DIST. GADAG. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. IRAPPA S/O. SHIVARAYAPPA VARUR, AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MISHRIKOTI, DIST. DHARWAD. 2. SHRI. PARISHAPPA S/O. TAVANAPPA ADAPPANAVAR, AGE. 61 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MISHRIKOTI, DIST. DHARWAD. 3. SMT. SUMANGALA @ BASAMMA W/O. YALLAPPA GOUDA PATIL, AGE: ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MISHRIKOTI, DIST. DHARWAD-581204. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5815 WP No. 101309 of 2023 4. SMT. PARVATI W/O. CHANDRASHEKAR PUJAR, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. HANUMAN TEMPLE ROAD, HALIYAL DIST. 581239. 5. SMT. SUDHA W/O. MAHESH METI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. JAKKALI, TQ. RON, DIST. GADAG-582119. 6. SHRI. BUDANAGOUDA S/O. BASANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MISHRIKOTI, DIST. DHARWAD-581 204. 7. TASHILDAR, KALGHATAGI, TQ. KALAGHATAGI, DIST. DHARWAD-580001. 8. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD NEAR HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, DHARWAD-580001. 9. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD D.C. OFFICE, NEAR HINDI PRACHAR SABHA, DHARWAD-580001. 10. REVENUE INSPECTOR DHUMMAWAD-580114. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.S. NAGASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. AASMA MAKANDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SMT. NIRMALA B. G. ADVOCATE FOR R6; R2, R3, R5 ARE SERVED; SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R7 TO R9) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5815 WP No. 101309 of 2023 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO: A) A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ISSUED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.10.2021 IN RTS AP ID 96/2019 PASSED BY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DHARWAD VIDE ANNEXURE-C. B) A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ISSUED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DHARWAD IN RP 81/2022 DATED 02/02/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-E IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 27-10-2021, passed by the respondent No.8 - Assistant Commissioner, Dharwad and the order dated 2-2- 2023, passed by Respondent No.9 - the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwad, produced as per Annexure-E. 2. Heard Sri. Shrikant T Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri.C.S.Nagashetti, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Smt. Aasma Makandar, learned counsel for respondent No.4, Smt.Nirmala B.G., learned counsel for respondent No.6 and Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5815 WP No. 101309 of 2023 Government Advocate for respondent Nos.7 to 9. Perused the materials on record. 3. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the parties are that, the father of the petitioner herein filed the suit in OS No.168/2009 against the private respondents seeking declaration that, he is entitled for half share in the scheduled property, and for permanent injunction. The said suit came to be decreed. The private respondents challenged the said judgment and decree by preferring RA No.274 of 2015. The First Appellate Court dismissed the Regular Appeal and confirmed the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. It is stated that the private respondents have preferred RSA No.100384 of 2018 before this Court, which is pending consideration. 4. In the meantime, on the basis of the preliminary decree passed in OS No.168 of 2009, the Tashildar - respondent No.7, certified ME No.49 entering the name of the petitioner as owner in respect of half share in the scheduled property. The same was challenged by the private respondents before the Assistant Commissioner, who passed - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5815 WP No. 101309 of 2023 the impugned order produced as per Annexure-C setting aside M.E.No.49 on the ground that certification of the said mutation entry was on the basis of the preliminary decree passed by the Civil Court. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Deputy Commissioner, who confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure- E giving similar reasons. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner who is the Decree Holder in respect of half of the share in the scheduled property has not sought for passing the final decree. The Regular Second Appeal is pending consideration before this Court. Under such circumstances, only on the basis of the preliminary decree, the Tashildar could not have certified ME.No.49 entering the name of the petitioner, which is now set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. 6. The order of the Assistant Commissioner discloses that in the meantime, the owner of the property was due to pay the land revenue, and the name of the Government came to be entered as per the order of the Tashildar dated 06-06- - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5815 WP No. 101309 of 2023 2019. However, the said order was not produced before this Court. Under such circumstances, the claim of the petitioner to restore ME.No.49 is not justified. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that RSA No.100384 of 2018 is already dismissed for default. However, no materials are placed before the Court in support of the same. Even if the Regular Second Appeal was dismissed, it only confirms the preliminary decree passed by the Trial Court. Under such circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the trial court for drawing the final decree. But, he is not entitled for any relief in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18