- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4899 WP No. 62559 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 62559 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SHRI. PAVADI S/O. REVAPPA KHETRI, AGE: 61 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YABARATTI, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. NOW AT SRI. RAVANSIDDESHWAR STORE, AZAD MILL, CHITRADURGA - 577 501. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. B. S. KAMATE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM - 590 001. 2. TEH ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKODI - 591 201, DIST: BELGAUM. 3. THE DEPUTY TAHASHILDAR, KUDACHI - 591 311, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. 4. SRI. SHANKREPPA REVAPPA KHETRI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YABARATTI - 591 317, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4899 WP No. 62559 of 2011 5. BHIMAPPA REVAPPA KHETRI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YABARATTI - 591 317, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. 6. SHIVALINGAPPA REVAPPA KHETRI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. YABARATTI - 591 317, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. PALLAVI PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. F.V. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5; SRI. SHRIHARSH A. NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE FOR R6) ------- THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02.09.2010 BEARING NO.RB/RTA/98/08-09 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT /DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E AND THE ORDER DATED 12.11.2008 BEARING NO.RTS/AP-10/08-09 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT /ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4899 WP No. 62559 of 2011 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 02.09.2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.1, produced as per Annexure-E, which is based on the order dated 12.11.2008, passed by the Assistant Commissioner-respondent No.2, produced as per Annexure-C. 2. Heard Sri B.S.Kamate, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Smt.Pallavi Pachchapure, for Sri F.V.Patil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Shriharsh A. Neelopant, learned counsel for respondent No.6. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioner that, the names of the contesting respondent Nos.4 to 6 came to be entered in the revenue records only on the basis of the Will, and therefore, the impugned orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are required to be - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4899 WP No. 62559 of 2011 quashed. But it was brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner had filed the suit O.S.No.287/1999 before the Civil Court, claiming partition in the very same property. Whereas the contesting respondents have placed reliance on the Relinquishment Deed dated 10.05.1987 executed by the petitioner, relinquishing his right over the property. Issue No.2 was framed by the Civil Court “as to whether the Relinquishment Deed dated 10.05.1987 was voluntarily executed”. The same was answered in the affirmative, and the suit in O.S.No.287/1999 came to be dismissed. The Appeal and the Second Appeal also came to be dismissed and therefore the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.287/1999 has reached finality. 4. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the wife and the children of the petitioner have filed suit O.S.No.21/2004, seeking declaration that the very same Relinquishment Deed dated 10.05.1987 is not binding on them. The said suit also came to be dismissed on the ground of res- judicata. Even though it is stated that the plaintiff in the said suit has been challenged under RA.No.181/2008, the result of the same is not made known. Under such circumstances, it is - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4899 WP No. 62559 of 2011 clear that the petitioner, his wife and children have made an attempt to avoid the Relinquishment Deed dated 10.05.1987 and they have failed before the Civil Court. Under such circumstances, the petitioner will not have any authority to once again agitate his claim over the property in question. The impugned order passed by respondent No.2-the Assistant Commissioner discloses that a portion of the judgment passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.287/1999 while answering issue No.2 in the affirmative is extracted and relied on to pass the impugned order. The same was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner-respondent No.1. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the petitioner as he has already failed in his attempt to seek a share in the property. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10