- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6520 WP No. 102384 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.102384 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SHANTAVVA W/O. RANGANAGOUDA GOUDAR @ PATIL, AGE. 46 YEARS. 2. MANJUNATH S/O. RANGANAGOUDA GOUDAR @ PATIL, AGE. 31 YEARS. 3. DYAMAVVA W/O. KANAKAPPA BANAHATTI, AGE. 29 YEARS. 4. RAMACHANDRA @ SRIRAMACHANDRA S/O. RANGANAGOUDA GOUDAR @ PATIL, AGE. 26 YEARS. ALL OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KADAMPUR, DIST. BAGALKOT 587101. TQ: SINDAGI, POST: KADAMPUR. …PETITIONERS (BY SHRI PRAVAN BADAGI, ADV FOR) SHRI S.B. HEBBALLI, ADV.) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6520 WP No. 102384 of 2025 AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT, DIST. BAGALKOT 587101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT SUB – DIV., DIST. BAGALKOT 587101. 3. SANNABHIMAPPA @ SANNABASAPPA S/O. RAYAPPA EMMI, AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KADAMPUR, DIST. BAGALKOT - 587101. TQ: SINDAGI, POST: KADAMPUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; NOTICE TO R3 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 14/11/2024 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT DISTRICT BAGALKOT IN R.P. NO.29/24, COPY OF WHICH IS ANNEXURE-E. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6520 WP No. 102384 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by Respondent No.1 – the Deputy Commissioner, Bagalakote, produced as per Annexure-E. 2. Heard Shri Pranav Badagi learned counsel for Shri S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri T. Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents – State. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the land bearing R.S.No.47/4 measuring 2.34 acres situated in Sindagi village, Kaladgi Hobli, Bagalakote Taluk and District was inherited by the petitioners from their predecessors in title by name Ranganagouda Goudar. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6520 WP No. 102384 of 2025 4. Admittedly, there are civil litigations between the petitioners and contesting respondent No.3. It is stated that, respondent No.3 and his mother have filed the suit in O.S.167/1993 for partition and separate possession of several items of the properties including the disputed property, which came to be decreed in part. R.A.No.88/2015 filed by Respondent No.3 and his mother came to be dismissed and the final decree proceedings in FDP.No.3/2002 was also disposed of. 5. It is also stated that, petitioners have filed the suit in O.S.No.130/2014 with respect to the property in question seeking declaration that, the sale deed relied on by respondent No.3 is not binding on them. The said suit came to be decreed. Respondent No.3 has preferred R.A.No.10/2016, which came to be dismissed. It is stated that, respondent No.3 has approached this Court by filing Regular Second Appeal, which is pending consideration. 6. In the meantime, after the death of Ranganagouda Goudar who is the predecessor in title of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6520 WP No. 102384 of 2025 the petitioners, the names of the petitioners came to be entered in the Record of Rights as per M.R.No.H1/2017- 18. Respondent No.3 challenged the said mutation entry before the Assistant Commissioner during 2024. The said appeal came to be dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner. The same was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner by preferring a revision. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision and set aside M.R.No.H1/2017-18. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 7. Admittedly both the parties have approached the Civil Court in respect of the property in dispute, while the decision in O.S.No.167/1993 has reached finality. The regular second appeal preferred by respondent No.3 against the petitioners is said to be pending before this Court. However, none of those documents were produced before this Court. Under such circumstances, I am of the opinion that it is not fair on the part of this Court to allow the writ petition, by setting aside the impugned order - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6520 WP No. 102384 of 2025 passed by respondent No.1. It is suffice to observe that the rights of the petitioners and contesting respondent No.3 shall be subject to the final result of the litigation between the parties before the Civil Court. With this observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12