- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5813 WP No. 102107 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. 102107 OF 2023 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: NIRMALA D/O. APPESAHEB PATIL, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SANSUDDI GALLI, SANKESHWAR, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591313. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. S. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI – 590 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF TECHNICAL ASSISTANT AND THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BELAGAVI DIST: BELAGAVI 590 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, SANKESHWAR, DIST. BELAGAVI - 591313. 4. SUBHASH S/O. ALAGONDA PATIL, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SANKESHWAR, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI 591313. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE FOR R4) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5813 WP No. 102107 of 2023 THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.01.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BELAGAVI IN APPEAL NO.REV/SR-26/22-23/2929 (ANNEXURE-A) BY UPHOLDING ORDER DATED 04.07.2022 IN CTS/AP-9/20-21 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO. 02 (ANNEXURE-G). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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 27.01.2023 passed by respondent No.1-the Joint Director of Land Records, Belagavi, produced as per Annexure-A. 2. Heard Sri K.S.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Vitthal S. Teli, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that, her brother- Anna Saheb Patil was holding CTS No.2660 of Sankeshwar, which is a commercial premises. After his death, she being the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5813 WP No. 102107 of 2023 sister, and the only legal representative of deceased Anna Saheb Patil, has succeeded to the property. Respondent No.4, according to the petitioner, being a stranger to her family, filed an application to enter his name in the record of rights, pertaining to the disputed property on the basis of a Will dated 10.03.2003, said to have been executed by deceased Anna Saheb Patil, which was accepted by respondent No.3, and made the mutation entry in the CTS records. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Deputy Director of Land Records, who allowed the appeal, and set aside the mutation made on the basis of the disputed Will. Respondent No.4 challenged the said order before the Joint Director of Land Records, Belagavi, who in turn, passed the impugned order restoring the name of respondent No.4 in the CTS records on the basis of the Will. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of this Court in R.V.Gopalkrishna V/s. The Deputy Commissioner, Shimoga and Others,1 in support of 1 2010(1) KLJ 263 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5813 WP No. 102107 of 2023 his contention that, ‘Will’ is not enumerated as one of the modes of acquiring rights and therefore Revenue Officer has no jurisdiction to enter the name of respondent No.4 in the record of rights and decide the dispute regarding the genuineness of the Will even for limited purpose of making entry in mutation register, as it falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of Civil Court. This position of law cannot be disputed. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4, opposing the petition submits that even though there was inordinate delay, the Deputy Director of Land Records had not condoned the delay. Under such circumstances, the appeal preferred by the petitioner could not have been allowed. 6. On perusal of the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.1 and 3, it is observed that the mutation of the name of respondent No.4 in the CTS records was only on the basis of the disputed Will. Under such circumstances, the impugned order is not justified and therefore, the same is to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5813 WP No. 102107 of 2023 (ii) The impugned order dated 27.01.2023 passed by respondent No.1-Joint Director of Land Records, Belagavi in Appeal No.REV/SR-26/22-23/2929, vide Annexure-A, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12