- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4635 WP No. 60864 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 60864 OF 2011 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: KOTTUR SWAMI MATH BY ITS PEETHADHIPATI, SHRI JAGDGURU SANGANBASAVESHWAR SWAMIGALU KOTTUR SWAMI MATH, BELLARY, DIST-BELLARY. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. NANDINI SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RAVIMURTHY S/O. RAMMURTHY AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN, 2. SMT. V. KUSUMA W/O. SATYANARAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF OPPOSITE HANUMAN TEMPLE REDDY COMPOUND, KOUL BAZAAR, BANDIHATTI ROAD, BELGAUM. 3. JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BELGAUM. 4. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R3 & R4) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4635 WP No. 60864 of 2011 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BELGAUM IN NO.REV.SR.10/2009-2010 DATED 18/03/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 DEPUTY DIRECT OF LAND RECORDS, BELLARY IN APPEAL NO.36/2002-2003 DATED 12/06/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-“B” AND ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING TO RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RECORDS OF THE SUIT PROPERTY IN CASE IF PETITIONER'S NAME IS DELETED. 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 petitioner has approached this Court, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 18.03.2010 passed by respondent No.3- the Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum, produced as per Annexure-A, and the order dated 12.06.2007 passed by respondent No.4-the Deputy Director of Land Records, produced as per Annexure-B and, to issue writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to enter the name of the petitioner in the record of rights, in respect of the disputed land. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4635 WP No. 60864 of 2011 2. Heard Smt.Nandini Somapur, learned counsel for Sri.B.V.Somapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Srinand A. Pachchapure, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is the Mutt represented by its Mathadipati. 4.15 acres of land in Sy.No.318/3 situated at Bellary was gifted in favour of mutt by its original owner by name Hireramappa Naik of Bellary. As per the Gift Deed, the Mutt came into possession of the property and it was enjoying the property. Respondent No.2 claims that he purchased the said property from the then Mathadipati of the Mutt under the registered Sale Deed dated 24.09.1964. However, neither copy of the Gift Deed nor copy of the Sale Deed are produced before this Court. 4. Now it is the concern of the petitioner that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have passed an order, directing to enter the name of respondent No.1 as being the purchaser of the property under the registered Sale Deed by deleting the name of the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4635 WP No. 60864 of 2011 petitioner. When the DDLR and JDLR have passed the impugned order based on the registered Sale Deed said to have been executed in favour of deceased respondent No.1, the same cannot be found fault with. 5. Even though it is the contention of the petitioner that the land in question was never sold in favour of respondent No.2 from the then Mathadipati of the Mutt, respondent No.2 is claiming the right under the registered Sale Deed. When it is the contention of the petitioner that the registered Sale Deed itself is not valid or not binding on the petitioner, he is required to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration of his title. When the orders impugned are passed based on the registered Sale Deed, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following. ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11