- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5349 WP No. 102362 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 102362 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. CHAPPARDALLI RAMESH S/O LATE. NAGAPPA, AGE. 58 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BENNIHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA. 2. CHAPPARDALLI KENCHAPPA S/O. LATE NAGAPPA, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BENNIHALLI VILLAGE - 583127 TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NAGANGOUDA R. KUPPELUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYANAGARA, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583127. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HARAPANAHALLI, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583127. 3. THE TAHASILDAR HARAPANAHALLI, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583127. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5349 WP No. 102362 of 2024 4. SMT. NARAMMA W/O. LATE DODDABASAPPA, AGE. 68 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. BENNIHALLI VILLAGE-583127 HARAPANAHALLI, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583127. 5. KALAJJA S/O. LATE DODDABASAPPA AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. BENNIHALLI VILLAGE-583127 TQ. HARAPANAHALLI DIST. VIJAYANAGARA-583127. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) ----- THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12-02-2024 IN BEARING APPEAL NO. 62/2023-24, PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT, VIDE ANNEXURE-D. B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11-07-2023, PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RA (H.HALLI)/CR NO.292/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5349 WP No. 102362 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 11.07.2023 passed by the Assistant Commissioner-respondent No.2, produced as per Annexure-B, which was confirmed in the order dated 12.02.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner- respondent No.1, produced as per Annexure-D. 3. Heard Sri Nagangouda R. Kuppelur, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the materials on record. 4. It is the contention of the petitioners that the name of their father came to be entered in the record of rights since 1968-69 on the basis of an agreement to sell - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5349 WP No. 102362 of 2024 executed in his favour. The said entry continued to be in force till 2015-16. During 2015-16, the name of the petitioners came to be deleted in the record of rights. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the application contending that the property in question was allotted to the share of the petitioners in a partition. Accordingly, MR.No.98/2016-17 was effected by the Tahsildar entering the names of the petitioners. It was challenged by respondent Nos.4 and 5 who claimed to be the legal representatives of the original owner before respondent No.2-the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner, set aside M.R.No.98/2016-17 and the said order was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner by passing the impugned order. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the entry in the record of rights is in the name of the father of the petitioners. It continued from 1968-69 and was in existence till 2015-16. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5349 WP No. 102362 of 2024 In the partition, the property had fallen to the share of the petitioners and therefore, they are the owners. 6. It is pertinent to note that the claim of the petitioners is only on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 16.08.1964, said to have been executed in favour of their father by the original owners. Admittedly there was no sale deed executed in his favour. Under such circumstances, mere entry in the record of rights will not create any right either in their favour or in favour of their father. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner were right in entering M.R.No.98/2016-17. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the orders impugned. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief in this petition. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER The petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:ANB :List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23