- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6080 WP No. 73030 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 73030 OF 2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. NOOR AHMED S/O. ADAMSAB YALIGAR, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 2. AMANULLA S/O. ABDUL RAHIMNSAB YALIGAR, AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 3. NOORULLA S/O. ABDUL RAHIMANSAB YALIGAR, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KAGINELLI, TQ: BYADGI, DISTRICT: HAVERI. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI GIRISH YADAWAD, AND SHRI BHISHAPATHI.S.B, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HAVERI SUB DIVISION, HAVERI, TQ & DISTRICT: HAVERI. 3. THE TAHSILDAR BYADGI, DISTRICT: HAVERI. 4. SMT. MAHABOOBHI W/O. ALLABAXSAB YALIGAR, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6080 WP No. 73030 of 2012 AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 5. MUNEERAHMED S/O. ALLABAXSAB YALIGAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 6. IRSHADAHMED S/O. ALLABAXSAB YALIGAR, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 7. LATEEFAHMED S/O. ALLABAXSAB YALIGAR, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KAGINELLI, TQ: BYADGI, DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SHRI V.M. SHEELAVANT, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING THIS COURT TO: A] ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 17.11.2011 MADE IN RTS/RA/CR-43/10-11/HAVERI, ON THE FILE OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J IN RESPECT OF M.E.NO.2738. B] ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2009 MADE IN RTS(D)/SR/17/08-09/BYADGI, ON THE FILE OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G. C] ISSUE AN ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO ENTER THE NAME OF PETITIONERS JOINTLY ALONGWITH RESPONDENT NO’S.4 TO 7 IN M.E.NO.2738 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C. D] PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION AS DEEMS FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION WITH COSTS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6080 WP No. 73030 of 2012 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 17.11.2011, passed by respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner, Haveri, produced as per Annexure- J, order dated 3.6.2009, passed by respondent No.3 – the Tahsildar, produced as per Annexure-G and to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing respondent No.3 to enter the names of the petitioners along with respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in M.E.No.2738, produced as per Annexure-C. 2. Heard Sri. Girish Yadawad, learned counsel for petitioner Nos.1 and 3, Sri Amanulla learned counsel for petitioner No.2, Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. V. M. Sheelvant, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 7. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6080 WP No. 73030 of 2012 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that, Adamsab had 3 children, that is, AbdulRahiman, Allabaxsab and Noorahamed. During the life of Adamsab, i.e., in the year 1976 M.E.No.1429 as per Annexure-A was certified, entering the names of all the three sons of Adamsab in the record of rights. Adamsab died on 9/6/1979, living behind his 3 sons. He was having in all, 7 items of land in Kaginele village and 6 lands in Kummur village. On 2/4/1983, M.E.No.1728 was certified to the effect that there was partition among three brothers. 4. As per M.E.No.1728, Survey Nos.31/1 and 28/1 had fallen to the share of Abdul Rahiman, that is the eldest son of deceased Adamsab, who is the father of the present petitioner Nos. 2 and 3. 5. Survey No.27/5, 28/2 of Kaginele village were allotted to the shares of Allabaxsab, the second son of Adamsab and the father of respondent Nos.5 to 7. After the death of Allabaxsab, on the basis of the application - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6080 WP No. 73030 of 2012 submitted by the wife of deceased Allabaxsab, M.E.No.1728 is certified. The petitioners are challenging the same. 6. The order dated 07.08.1987, passed by the Tahsildar, Byadgi, is in respect of the challenge to M.E.No.1728. It is based on the partition dated 02.04.1983, produced as per Annexure-B. As per M.E.No.1728, Abdul Rahiman, Allabaxsab, Noorahmed, sons of Adamsab Yaligar, have been allotted in all 7 items of properties i.e., Survey No.31, measuring 3.04 acres, 28/1 measuring 1.35 acres, 27/5 measuring 3.25 acres, 28/2 measuring 3.28 acres, 27/A measuring 5.33 acres, 117/2 measuring 0.06 acres, 117/5B measuring 0.25 acres and 31/2 measuring 3.02 acres. Out of which Survey Nos.31/1 and 28/1 were allotted to the share of Abdul Rahiman Adamsab Yaligar. Survey Nos.27/5, 28/2, 27/A, 117/2 and 117/5 are allotted to Allabaxsab Adamsab Yaligar and Survey No.31/2 is allotted to the share of Noorahmed Adamsab Yaligar. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6080 WP No. 73030 of 2012 7. When M.E.1429 produced as per Annexure-A, was challenged by petitioner No.1-Noorahmed and the same was remanded back to the Tahsildar, Byadgi, for reconsideration, he held fresh enquiry by recording the statements of both the parties. It is the contention of the petitioners that, there was a panchayat held and partition was effected in respect of the properties held by their father, and during such panchayat, their signatures were taken on the blank papers. But, they had not agreed for partition as per M.E.No.1728. Therefore, it is contended that, the said mutation entry was obtained by making false representation regarding partition by making use of his signature obtained on such blank papers. 8. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that, when M.E.No.1728 was set aside as per Annexure-B1, and when admittedly, there was no fresh partition between the parties by entering the registered Partition Deed as suggested in Annexure-B1, the contesting respondents could not have entered their - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6080 WP No. 73030 of 2012 own names in the revenue records as per M.E.No.2738 dated 06.11.2001 produced as per Annexure-C. When this was brought to the notice of the Tahsildar by filing an application, he effected Mutation Entry No.14/2005-06 entering the names of all the sharers including the legal representatives of Allabaxsab. There cannot be any dispute with regard to M.E.No.14/2005-06. But, the contesting respondents challenged the same before the Assistant Commissioner, who erroneously allowed the appeal and set aside M.E.No.14/2005-06, produced as per Annexure-E. The said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-F. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 9. Learned counsel submitted that, even though there were sale deeds subsequent to cancellation of M.E.No.1728 as per Annexure-B1, the same cannot be a ground to deny the rights of the petitioners to have their names in respect of Sy.No.28/1 measuring 1.35 acres, which had even according to the contesting respondents - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6080 WP No. 73030 of 2012 fallen to the share of the petitioners. He further contended that the father of the contesting respondents had categorically stated before the revenue officials that there was no partition as suggested. Such statement was referred to by the Tahsildar in Annexure-B1. Under such circumstances, now the contesting respondents cannot contend that there was an earlier partition and hence, they are entitled to mutate their names exclusively in respect of few of the properties as mentioned in M.E.2738. Under these circumstances, even though the Deputy Commissioner directed the parties to approach the Civil Court, M.E.No.14/2005-06 is to be restored by entering the names of all the parties. It is to be left to the parties to approach the Civil Court to decide about their rights. Hence prays for allowing the petition. 10. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that according to the husband of respondent No.4, who is the father of respondent Nos.5 to 7, and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3, there was a - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6080 WP No. 73030 of 2012 panchayat between the brothers. They agreed to partition the properties, and accordingly the signatures of the parties were obtained. The recitals of the partition were written on the same. Accordingly, M.E.No.1728 was certified. It is also contended by the respondents therein that, no objection was submitted by the applicants therein to certify M.E.No.1728. Rather, they accepted the same, as the brothers have availed loan independently from various societies and the bank. M.E.No.3009 and 2040 were certified creating charge over their respective sharers of the properties. It is also contended that, the applicant before the Tahsildar, i.e., the petitioner herein, have disputed the partition in respect of the properties situated at Kaginele only, while admitting such partition in respect of the properties situated at Kammur village. Therefore, he contended that M.E.No.1728 was certified in accordance with law and it is not liable for cancellation. 11. It is further contended that, the deed of partition was required to be registered as per Section 17 of the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6080 WP No. 73030 of 2012 Registration Act, 1908. Since there is no registered partition deed, M.E.No.1728 is liable to be set aside. These contentions were considered by the Tahsildar and he proceeded to pass the following: “ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹zÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀºÀ²Ã®zÁgï, ¨ÁåqÀV, ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹zÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀºÀ²Ã®zÁgï, ¨ÁåqÀV, ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹zÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀºÀ²Ã®zÁgï, ¨ÁåqÀV, ªÉÄÃ¯É «ªÀj¹zÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ £Á£ÀÄ vÀºÀ²Ã®zÁgï, ¨ÁåqÀV, DzÉò¸ÀĪÀzÉÃ£É DzÉò¸ÀĪÀzÉÃ£É DzÉò¸ÀĪÀzÉÃ£É DzÉò¸ÀĪÀzÉãÉAzÀgÉ PÁV£É¯É UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ DzÀ 'qÀ' £ÀA: 1728 £ÀÄß F AzÀgÉ PÁV£É¯É UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ DzÀ 'qÀ' £ÀA: 1728 £ÀÄß F AzÀgÉ PÁV£É¯É UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ DzÀ 'qÀ' £ÀA: 1728 £ÀÄß F AzÀgÉ PÁV£É¯É UÁæªÀÄPÉÌ DzÀ 'qÀ' £ÀA: 1728 £ÀÄß F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ gÀzÀÄÝ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹gÀÄªÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ gÀzÀÄÝ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹gÀÄªÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ gÀzÀÄÝ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹gÀÄªÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ gÀzÀÄÝ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä DzÉò¹gÀÄªÉ CfðzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« wgÀ¸ÀÌj¹ JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¹éÃPÀj¹gÀĪÉ. G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁnßAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¹éÃPÀj¹gÀĪÉ. G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁnßAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¹éÃPÀj¹gÀĪÉ. G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁnßAiÀÄ£ÀÄß JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ªÀÄ£À« ¹éÃPÀj¹gÀĪÉ. G¨sÀAiÀÄvÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ªÁnßAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃAzÀ ªÀiÁr¹ ºÉƸÀzÁV ªÀ¢ð PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. £ÉÆÃAzÀ ªÀiÁr¹ ºÉƸÀzÁV ªÀ¢ð PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. £ÉÆÃAzÀ ªÀiÁr¹ ºÉƸÀzÁV ªÀ¢ð PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. £ÉÆÃAzÀ ªÀiÁr¹ ºÉƸÀzÁV ªÀ¢ð PÉÆqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÉzÀ £Á DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÉzÀ £Á DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÉzÀ £Á DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÉgÉzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è N¢ ºÉüÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß åAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è N¢ ºÉüÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß åAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è N¢ ºÉüÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß åAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è N¢ ºÉüÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀjUÉ ºÉý §gɬĸÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. vÀ¥ÀÄàUÀ¼À£ÀÄß w¢Ý ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀjUÉ ºÉý §gɬĸÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. vÀ¥ÀÄàUÀ¼À£ÀÄß w¢Ý ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀjUÉ ºÉý §gɬĸÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. vÀ¥ÀÄàUÀ¼À£ÀÄß w¢Ý ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀjUÉ ºÉý §gɬĸÀ¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ. vÀ¥ÀÄàUÀ¼À£ÀÄß w¢Ý ¸Àj¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. DzÉñÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄäA¢ü¹zÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß G¨sÀAiÀÄ ¸Àj¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. DzÉñÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄäA¢ü¹zÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß G¨sÀAiÀÄ ¸Àj¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. DzÉñÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄäA¢ü¹zÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß G¨sÀAiÀÄ ¸Àj¥Àr¸À¯ÁVzÉ. DzÉñÀzÀ ¸ÀªÀÄäA¢ü¹zÀ ¨sÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß G¨sÀAiÀÄ ¥ÀPÀëUÁgÀjUÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ UÁæªÀįÉSÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV ¥ÀPÀëUÁgÀjUÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ UÁæªÀįÉSÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV ¥ÀPÀëUÁgÀjUÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ UÁæªÀįÉSÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV ¥ÀPÀëUÁgÀjUÀÆ ºÁUÀÆ UÁæªÀįÉSÁ¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ ªÀÄÄA¢£À PÀæªÀÄPÁÌV PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÆr. PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÆr. PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÆr. PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ PÉÆr.” 12. On going through the operative portion of the order extracted above, it is clear that, the Tahsildar by accepting the contention taken by the applicant Noorahmed Adamsab Yaligar rejected the contention by the respondents, Abdul Rahiman Adamsab Yaligar and Allabaxsab Adamsab Yaligar, and ordered for cancellation of M.E.No.1728 thereby directed both the parties to get the partition deed registered and submit the application afresh for mutation of the properties. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6080 WP No. 73030 of 2012 13. It is also contended by the contesting respondents that even though the Tahsildar set aside M.E.No.1728, subsequently the parties have acted on the very same partition and sold several items of properties. Admittedly, petitioner No.1 sold Sy.No.31/2 of Kaginele village, under the Sale Deed dated 27.05.1995 to one Mohammed Yusuf. Similarly, the father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had executed the registered Will dated 27.06.2001, produced as per Annexure-R6 only in respect of the properties, which had fallen to his share. That means to say, the father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had admitted the partition and acted on it. Similarly, petitioner No.1 had also acted on the partition and sold the properties which had fallen to his share. Under such circumstances, the petitioners now cannot turn around and contend that, they are also entitled to enter their names as per M.E.No.14/2005-06. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have properly appreciated the contentions of the parties and refused to restore M.E.No.14/2005-06 and directed the parties to approach - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6080 WP No. 73030 of 2012 the Civil Court for declaration of their title. Under such circumstances, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 14. On perusal of the materials on record, the parties before the Tahsildar have contended that, even though, ME.No.1728 was cancelled as per order dated 07.08.1987 vide Annexure-B1, as per the document produced on behalf of contesting respondents i.e., Annexure-R5 – the sale deed dated 27.12.1995, admittedly, petitioner No.1 sold 3.03 acres of land in Sy.No.31/2 of Kaginele village. He refers to said property, as the ancestral property which he inherited. Annexure-R6, is the registered Will executed by the father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 dated 27.06.2001 which is only in respect of two items of the properties, which have fallen to his share under the partition deed. He never referred to other properties which had fallen to the share of his brothers. These documents prima facie suggest that even though ME.No.1728 was set aside by the Tahsildar, subsequently, the parties somehow acted on such partition either by selling few items which had fallen - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6080 WP No. 73030 of 2012 to their share under registered sale deed or by executing the Will and bequeathing the properties fallen to their share in favour of their children. When the parties acted on the partition or the arrangement, which they referred to and took advantage of the same, the petitioners cannot now contend that, in view of Annexure-B1, there was no partition and their names are to be entered in respect of all the items of the properties, which were retained by Allabhaksh now inherited by contesting respondents. 15. There is absolutely no explanation by learned counsel for the petitioners either for Annexure-R5, the sale deed dated 27.12.1995, admittedly executed by petitioner No.1 selling Sy.No.31/2 of Kaginele village in favour of a third party, and for Annexure-R6, the registered Will dated 27.06.2001 executed by the father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 only in respect of two items of the properties, which had fallen to his share. Under these circumstances, as rightly observed by the Deputy Commissioner by passing the order as per Annexure-J, aggrieved parties may approach - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6080 WP No. 73030 of 2012 the Civil Court to determine their rights over the properties in question. Such enquiry cannot be held in the writ petition by this Court or by the Revenue Officer by mutating the names of the parties in revenue records. It is only the Civil Court, after full-fledged trial which can give a finding regarding the rights of the parties. Hence, I am of the opinion that the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners is liable to be rejected and accordingly the writ petition is to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following: The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM,EM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1