- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4972 WP No. 66743 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.66743 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: DASTAGIRSAB S/O. ALLISAB BHAIRAKDAR, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS, 1. HAJRATMA W/O. DASTAGIRSAB BHAIRAKDAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, and HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SANGANKERI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. 2. MOHAMMADGOUS S/O. DASTAGIRSAB BHAIRAKDAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SANGANKERI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. 3. RAFIQ S/O. DASTAGIRSAB BHAIRAKDAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SANGANKERI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. 4. RAMEEZA W/O. ABDULSAB HUKKERI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SINDHIKURBET, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. 5. CHANDBI W/O. SHAMSHER MUJAWAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SANGANKERI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4972 WP No. 66743 of 2011 6. YASEEN S/O. DASTAGIRSAB BHAIRAKDAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SANGANKERI, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. NABISAB HUSENSAB MULLA AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SANGANKERI,TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELGAUM. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL. 5. THE TAHSHILDAR, GOKAK. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. HANAMANT R. LATUR, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA, FOR R2 TO R5) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM IN RB/RTA/70/2009-10 DATED 28/10/2010, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL IN RTA/AP/134/06-07 DATED 06/02/2009 AND ORDER PASSED BY THE TAHASILDAR GOKAK IN MTS/CR-2576/2005-06 DATED 28/07/2006 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES-F, E AND D RESPECTIVELY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4972 WP No. 66743 of 2011 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 are seeking issuance of the writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.06.2006 passed by the Tahsildar, Gokak produced as per Annexure-D, order dated 06.02.2009 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal Sub-Division, produced as per Annexure-E and the order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi district, produced as per Annexure-F, wherein they have refused to entertain the application filed by the petitioners to delete the name of respondent No.1 in the revenue records. 2. Heard Sri Vinay S.Koujalagi, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri Hanumanth R.Latur, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 5. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are the wife and children of deceased Dastagirsab, who was the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4972 WP No. 66743 of 2011 owner of 1.04 acres of land in Sy.No.88/2 (New Sy.No.301) of Balobol village in Gokak taluk. 4. Respondent No.1 contends that his father purchased the said property from Dastagirsab, along with one Meerasab, under the registered sale deed dated 02.10.1961. However, the name of the purchasers were not entered in the revenue records, as the Tahsildar has made a shara to the effect that the sale was illegal in view of the provisions of Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966 (‘KPFC Act’ for short). However, subsequently the Tahsildar passed the impugned order as per Annexure-D deleting such note, and entering the name of the purchasers in the revenue records. The said order was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and also by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. It is the contention of the petitioners that, since the land was sold in violation of the provisions of KPFC Act, the names of the purchasers under the registered sale deed could not have been entered. Interestingly, the petitioners are not - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4972 WP No. 66743 of 2011 disputing the execution of the registered sale deed dated 02.10.1961 by Dastagirsab in favour of the father of respondent No.1 and one Meerasab, by accepting the consideration amount, even though, initially a shara was noted to the effect that the sale is in violation of the provisions of KPFC Act. Subsequent M.E.No.1750 produced as per Annexure- C, discloses that the purchasers have paid the penalty, and therefore there was an order to delete the note that the sale is in violation of the provisions of KPFC Act, and to enter the name of the purchaser. 6. The impugned order passed by the Tahsildar produced as per Annexure-D, is a detailed order wherein he has narrated about the execution of the registered sale deed for valid consideration, and it is stated that no right is accrued to the petitioners, even if, the lands were purchased in violation of the provisions of KPFC Act. It is also stated that permission was accorded to purchase the land in question, and M.E.No.1750 (Annexure-C) is effected after deposit of the penalty. 7. There is reference to a civil dispute between the parties which is said to be pending consideration before the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4972 WP No. 66743 of 2011 competent court of civil jurisdiction, and it is recorded by the Tahsildar, Gokak. The genuinity of the registered sale deed cannot be determined by the revenue authorities. Therefore the application filed by petitioner was rejected. The said order was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and also by the Deputy Commissioner by assigning detailed reasons, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the orders. 8. It is relevant to note that the third proviso to Section 128(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 any person acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document is exempted from reporting the same to the prescribed officer to enter his name in the Record of Rights. Under such circumstances, contention of the petitioners that, the names of the purchasers under the registered sale deed could not have been entered in the revenue records cannot be accepted, and therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9