- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4973 WP No. 65067 of 2012 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.65067 OF 2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. TALWAR KOTLAPPA S/O. LATE SRI TALWAR MUGAPPA, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: AMMANAKERE VILLAGE, AT: POST: KOKKUPPI VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLAGI, DIST: BELLARY. 2. TALWAR NAGAPPA S/O. LATE SRI TALWAR MUGAPPA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O: AMMANAKERE VILLAGE, AT: POST: KOKKUPPI VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLAGI, DIST: BELLARY. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI JAYAWANT SAVAGAON, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4973 WP No. 65067 of 2012 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY. 3. THE TASHILDAR, BELLARY TALUK, BELLARY. 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KUDLAGI CIRCLE, KUDLAGI. DIST: BELLARY. 5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, MORAB VILLAGE, TQ: KUDLAGI. DIST: BELLARY. 6. TALWAR MUGAPPA S/O. LATE MUGAPPA, AMMANNAKERE VILLAGE, POST: KAKKUPPI, TQ: KUDALAGI, DIST: BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.6 - SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELLARY IN APPEAL NO.122/08-09 DATED 26.07.2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4973 WP No. 65067 of 2012 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 26.07.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ballari produced as per Annexure-C. 2. Heard Sri Jayawant Savagaon, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 5 – State. Perused the materials on record. 3. The only contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the Deputy Commissioner committed an error in passing the impugned order, directing to delete the name of Mugappa son of Nagappa i.e., the father of the petitioners in Column No.9, in respect of Sy.No.156F measuring 3.57 acres situated at Ammanakeri village, and to enter the name of respondent No.6 – Mugappa son of Mugappa as pattadar, by cancelling M.E.No.6/08-09. The only basis for the petitioners to challenge the impugned order is, the entry in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4973 WP No. 65067 of 2012 Column No.9 of the Record of Rights produced as per Annexure-A for the years 2007-2008. 4. On going through the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, he has discussed at length about the facts of the case and has assigned valid reasons in support of his finding. The first such reason is that, the name of Mugappa is mentioned in the settlement register in respect of the disputed land. 5. Secondly, the Record of Rights, since from the year 1968-1969 till 1993-1994, refers to the name of Mugappa son of Mugappa in Column No.9, as the owner in occupation of the land. 6. Thirdly it is stated that, during 1994-1995, Column No.9 of the Record of Rights was overwritten to change the name of Mugappa as Nagappa. It is stated that, no proceedings were initiated to make such changes, and therefore it was held that such change or overwriting is unauthorized. ME.No.6/08- 09 dated 30.08.2008 was certified on the basis of such unauthorized changes in the Record of Rights and therefore the impugned order was passed cancelling ME.No.6/08-09, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4973 WP No. 65067 of 2012 ordering to remove the name of Mugappa son of Nagappa in Column No.9 of the Record of Rights, and to show the name of Mugappa son of Mugappa as pattadar in the revenue records. 7. The reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order as per Annexure-C is convincing. The petitioners are not having any independent document to substantiate their contention that their father Mugappa son of Nagappa was the owner of the disputed land. They only placed reliance on Annexure-A , the Record of Rights for the year 2007 -2008. 8. In view of the reasons assigned by the Deputy Commissioner for passing the impugned order, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly it is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14