- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6440 WP No. 81853 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 81853 OF 2013 (LR-) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. FAKIRAWA W/O. NAGAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: CHACHADI, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SMT. DYAMAVVA W/O. BASAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. –DO- 3. SMT.LAXMAVVA W/O.MUDAKAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. –DO- 4. KUMARI. RENUKA D/O.MUDAKAPPA TALAWAR AGE: 13 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O. –DO- 5. KUMARI. MALLAVVA D/O. MUDAKAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 09 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O. –DO- 6. KUMARI. NAGAVVA D/O. MUDAKAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 04 YEARS, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6440 WP No. 81853 of 2013 OCC: STUDENT R/O. –DO- 7. KUMARI. DEEPA D/O.MUDAKAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 06 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT R/O. –DO- (THE PETITIONER NO.4 TO 7 ARE MINORS, REPRESENTED BY THEIR NATURAL MOTHER I.E. PETITIONER NO.3 AS A MINOR GUARDIAN) 8. SMT. YALLAWWA W/O.YALLAPPA TALAWAR AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. –DO- 9. SHRI. PUNDALIK YALLAPPA TALAWAR, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. –DO- …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHRI. ADIVEPPA SAKREPPA SOGALAD, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O:CHACHADI, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. 2. SHRI.LAXMAN SAKREPPA SOGALAD, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O.CHACHADI, TQ: SOUNDATTI, DIST: BELGAUM. 3. SHRI. SHIVARAYAPPA SAKREPPA SOGALAD AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. –DO- - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6440 WP No. 81853 of 2013 4. SHRI.GANGAPPA SAKREPPA SOGALAD, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. –DO- 5. SMT.NAGAVVA W/O.BASAPPA HALABANAR, AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. –DO- 6. SMT.MAHADEVI W/O.SHIVAPPA KURIYAR, AGE: 22 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. –DO- 7. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELGAUM. 8. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER BELGAUM, DIVISIONAL BELGAUM. 9. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE – 01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R7 TO R9; SRI. VENKATARAO N. DESHMUKH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; R5 & R6 ARE SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION, BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 10/07/2013 PASSED IN RCB/LRM/BGM/RA-231/07-08, BY THE RESPONDENT NO.8 (I.E. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM), VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6440 WP No. 81853 of 2013 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 The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 10.07.2013, passed by respondent No.8-the Regional Commissioner, Belgaum, produced as per Annexure-F. 2. Heard Sri.Santosh B. Rawoot, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.7 to 9, Sri. Venkatarao N. Deshmukh for Sri. Aravind D. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the materials on record. 3. From the materials on record, it is clear that, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, by name Yallappa Siddappa Talawar, filed Form No.7, seeking grant of occupancy right in respect of R.S.No.255/1A and 257/1 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6440 WP No. 81853 of 2013 of Chachadi Village of Soundatti Taluk. The same was entered into by the Land Tribunal, and Form No.7 was rejected on the ground that, as per the record of rights, the mode of cultivation is number 1, i.e. self-cultivation by the owner. The land in question is in occupation and cultivation of the owner, i.e. the claimant. Therefore, Form No.7 filed by the claimant cannot be entertained. Thus, the Land Tribunal categorically held that the land in question is not a tenanted land, but it was in occupation and cultivation of the owner himself. When such a categorical finding was recorded by the Land Tribunal, the petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner seeking deletion of M.E.No.797 and 926, according to which the lands in question were recorded as vested with the Government as the same are tenanted land. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, noticing these facts and circumstances allowed the appeal and ordered cancellation of ME No.926. Being aggrieved by the same, the contesting respondents herein approached the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6440 WP No. 81853 of 2013 Regional Commissioner, who allowed the appeal, by passing the impugned order on the ground that the Assistant Commissioner is not authorized to entertain the appeal against the mutation entry when the land is vested in the Government under Section 44, or against the order of the Land Tribunal. 5. I do not find any justification for the Regional Commissioner to hold that the Assistant Commissioner is not competent to entertain the appeal against the mutation entry under the Land Revenue Act. It is only the Assistant Commissioner who can entertain the appeal against the mutation entry. 6. When the Land Tribunal categorically holds that the land in question is not the tenanted land but it is in occupation and cultivation of the owner, the petitioners have rightly approached the Assistant Commissioner, challenging the mutation entry No. 926, which was set aside by the Assistant Commissioner by assigning valid reasons. Under these circumstances, the order impugned - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6440 WP No. 81853 of 2013 passed by the Regional Commissioner questioning the authority of the Assistant Commissioner to set aside the mutation entry is perverse and illegal and the same is to be quashed. 7. Even though learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 fairly concedes that these respondents do not have any right over the property in question, however only because they were arrayed as parties before the Assistant Commissioner, they have challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The order dated 10.07.2013 passed by respondent No.8-Regional Commissioner, Belgaum, in RCB/LRM/BGM/RA-231/07-08, produced as per Annexure-F, is quashed. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6440 WP No. 81853 of 2013 (iii) The order dated 13.01.2006 passed by respondent No.7-Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal Sub-Division, Bailhongal in KLR.AP-32/04-05, produced as per Annexure-D, is restored. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab,MKM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2