- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6403-DB WA No.100502 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100502 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SMT. MAHANTAMMA W/O ADIVEPPA JEER SINCE DECEASED BY LEGATEE UNDER THE REGISTERED WILL BASAVARAJ CHANDRASHEKAR CHAKOTI AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. CVC FARM HOUSE KUSHTAGI ROAD, BHARAT GAS BHAGYANAGAR KOPPAL, DIST. KOPPAL-583231. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAWOOT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-1, PIN-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583238. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOPPAL, TQ AND DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583238. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, KUSTAGI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583277. MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6403-DB WA No.100502 of 2024 5. SHARANAPPA S/O TIPPANNA HUGAR AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O.HUGAR ONI, OLD BAZAR KUSTAGI, TQ. KUSTAGI, DIST. KOPPAL, PIN-583277. 6. SUMITRA W/O CHANDRAHSEKHARAPPA HUGAR AGE. 66 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. PLOT NO.61/A SECTOR 46 NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT, TQ. & DIST. BAGALKOT-587103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. B.C. JNANAYYASWAMI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05-01-2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.101460 OF 2022 (KLR-RR-SUR) BY ALLOWING THE APPEAL BY ALLOWING WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6403-DB WA No.100502 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) The above intra-Court appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 calling in question the order dated 5.1.2024 passed in WP No.101460/2022, wherein the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by respondent No.6 herein. Along with the above appeal, IA No.2/2024 is filed seeking permission to prosecute the above appeal. 2. The relevant facts are that, one Erappa S/o Basappa Jeera @ Hugar (who was the owner of land bearing Sy.No.98/1 measuring 8 acres 22 guntas situated at Kushtagi Village and Taluk1) died on 28.1.2020. One Mahantamma, who was respondent No.5 in the writ proceedings, claiming to be the wife of the deceased Erappa filed an application before the Tahsildar to substitute her name in place of Erappa in the revenue records pertaining to the said property, which application was allowed. Respondent No.6 herein, who was the writ petitioner, claiming to be the daughter of deceased Erappa filed an appeal under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land 1 Hereinafter referred to as ‘the said property’. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6403-DB WA No.100502 of 2024 Revenue Act, 1964 before the Assistant Commissioner, challenging the order passed by the Tahsildar. The said appeal was dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner, which was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. Being aggrieved, the writ petition was filed. 3. The learned Single Judge noticing that the Tahsildar had not issued notice, held that the order passed by the Tahsildar is in violation of principles of natural justice and further noticing that the suits in OS No.82/2020 and 176/2020 are pending before the Civil Court, allowed the writ petition and passed the following order: “ i) The petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order dated 17.02.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A, the order dated 22.05.2020 passed by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-B and the order dated 14.3.2014 passed by respondent No.4 vide Annexure-C stand quashed. iii) The Tashildar concerned to restore the name of Erappa in the revenue records in respect of the subject land, and the same is subject to final outcome in the pending suits in OS No.82/2020 on the file of learned Civil Judge, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6403-DB WA No.100502 of 2024 Kushtagi and OS No.176/2020 on the file of learned Civil Judge, Yelburga filed by the petitioner against respondent No.5.” 4. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed. 5. The appellant herein claims to be the legatee of Mahantamma. It is relevant to notice herein that the appellant and the private respondents are claiming through the deceased Erappa. The rival claims of the parties are the subject matter of consideration in civil proceedings before the jurisdictional Civil Court, as noticed above. 6. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition and setting aside the order passed by the Revenue Authorities, has directed the respondent No.4/Tahsildar to restore the name of Erappa in the revenue records, which shall be subject to outcome of pending suits in OS No.82/2020 and 176/2020. The course adopted by the learned Single Judge is just and proper, having regard to the settled principle of law that the revenue authorities are required to follow the judgment of the jurisdictional Civil Court in entering the name of concerned persons in the revenue records. The rival claims put-forth by the contesting parties with respect to the property - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6403-DB WA No.100502 of 2024 of the deceased Erappa cannot be adjudicated by the revenue authorities and as rightly observed by the learned Single Judge entering the name of persons in the revenue records claiming under deceased Erappa would be subject to outcome of pending civil proceedings. 7. Having regard to the aforementioned, the appellant has failed in demonstrating that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is in any manner erroneous and liable to be interfered by this Court in the present appeal. 8. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. 9. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6