- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5284-DB WA No. 100190 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100190 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI PAVADEPPA S/O YALLAPPA SHUGUNNSI AGE. 83 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGULKHOD 591235, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591235. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. K. ANANDKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SHIVRAJ S/O MAHADEV SHIGUNNSI AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 2. GURURAJ S/O MAHADEV SHIGUNNSI AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 3. YALLALING S/O MAHADEV SHIGUNNSI AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 4. RAJASHREE D/O MAHADEV SHIGUNNSI AGE. 30 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 5. BHARATI D/O MAHADEV SHIGUNNSI AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5 ARE R/O. MUGULKHOD, TAL. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591235. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DIST. BELAGAVI-590001. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5284-DB WA No. 100190 of 2024 7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKKODI SUB DIVISION, CHIKODI, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201. 8. THE TAHSHILDAR RAIBAG, TQ.RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 9. APPASAHEB S/O YALLAPPA SHIGUNNSI AGE. 75 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MUGULKHOD, RAIBAG, TQ.RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591235. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R6 TO R8) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED 09-01-2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.106514/2023 N ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPELLANTS WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED FOR IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5284-DB WA No. 100190 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA) 1. Notwithstanding IA No.2/2024 filed for condonation of delay of 54 days in filing the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant was called upon to make his submissions on the merit of the appeal. 2. Respondent No.4 before the learned Single Judge, has filed the present intra-Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, calling in question the order dated 9.1.2024 passed in WP No.106514/2023, whereunder, learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition, directing restoration of ME No.7750 and further directed that the said mutation is subject to outcome of the suit to be filed by any of the parties. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that, property bearing RS No.14/3 measuring 4 acres 22 guntas of Mugalkhod village of Raibag Taluk, originally belonged to one Yallappa, the grandfather of the petitioners and father of respondents No.4 and 5. After his death, the names of the sons of Yallappa were substituted by virtue of ME No.7750. Thereafter, the names of the petitioners were mutated in the revenue records vide ME - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5284-DB WA No. 100190 of 2024 No.1607 dated 31.3.1995 stating that respondent No.4 has relinquished his rights. The said mutation was on the basis of unregistered relinquishment deed. The mutation entry in favour of the petitioners was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner while entertaining the appeal set-aside the mutation entries. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners were before the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid writ petition. 4. The learned Single Judge noticing that the basis for effecting mutation entries in the name of the petitioners was the unregistered relinquishment deed, held that whether the petitioners have acquired rights under the unregistered relinquishment deed is a matter to be adjudicated before the Civil Court and not by the revenue authorities. Finding of the learned Single Judge that mutation entries on the basis of unregistered relinquishment deed is not sustainable in law, is just and proper. Further, it is to be noted that the writ petition was disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to agitate their rights before the jurisdictional Civil Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5284-DB WA No. 100190 of 2024 5. Although it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the revenue entries ought to have been made on the basis of the unregistered relinquishment deed, no error could be found with the order of the learned Single Judge, who has directed ME No.7750 to be restored and further ordered that it shall be subject to outcome of civil proceedings, that may be initiated between the parties. 6. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed both on delay as well as on merit. 7. Pending applications, if any, are disposed of, as not surviving for consideration. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE JTR CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 11