- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6647 WP No. 100524 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 100524 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1) MALAKAJAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA KARIGONNAVAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YARAGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 129. 2) CHANDRAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA KARIGONNAVAR AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YARAGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 129. YALLAKKA W/O. IRAPPA DEVARMANI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 3) RUDRAVVA W/O. CHANDRAPPA KARIGONNAVAR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YARAGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 129. 4) SURESH S/O. NINGAPPA KARIGONNAVAR, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YARAGATTI, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6647 WP No. 100524 of 2024 TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 129. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1) THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI, TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI 590 001. 3) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 102. 4) THE TAHASILDAR YARAGATTI/SAUNDATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 129. 5) THE REVENUE INSPECTOR YARAGATTI, TQ: YARAGATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 129. 6) VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT YARAGATTI, TQ: YARAGATTI, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 129. MAHADEV S/O. SATHYAPPA KARIGONNAVAR SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 7) SHOBHA W/O. MAHADEV KARIGONNAVAR AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YARAGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 129. 8) YALLAVVA W/O. MALAPPA MULLUR AGE: 36 YEARS, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6647 WP No. 100524 of 2024 OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YARAGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 129. 9) ASHWINI W/O. JAGADISH HALAKATTI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YARAGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 129. 10) SAVITRI D/O. MAHADEV KARIGONNAVAR AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YARAGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 129. 11) SHIVANAND S/O. BASAPRABHU YARAGANAVI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YARAGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI PIN: 591 129. 12) SHIVANAND S/O. DUNDAPPA YARAGANAVI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YARAGATTI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI PIN: 591 129. 13) SIDDLINGAVVA @ YALLAVVA W/O. IRAPPA KADAKOL, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MEKALMARDI, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI 591 121. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6647 WP No. 100524 of 2024 YALLAKKA W/O. IRAPPA DEVARMANI SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S. 14) DUNDAVVA W/O. HUVAPPA KURABAR AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GUNDYANATI, TQ: KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 106. 15) PARAVVA W/O. VENKAPPA KALAL AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BANNUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI - 591 129. 16) CHINNAVVA W/O. BALAPPA SAVALAGATAGI AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: GARGUR, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI – 591101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. G.I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R7 TO R10; R11, R12 – SERVED; NOTICE TO R13 TO R16 – ARE 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 OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN RB/RTA/103/2022-23 DATED 31/08/2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE- J SUBSEQUENTLY QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03/03/2018 IN NO.RTA.AP-297/15-16 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 20/03/1957 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6647 WP No. 100524 of 2024 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 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 (i) to quash the order dated 31.08.2023 passed by respondent No.2-the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, produced as per Annexure J, (ii) to quash the order dated 03.03.2018 passed by respondent No.3- the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal, produced as per Annexure-H, and (iii) to issue writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to enter the names of petitioners in the revenue records as per registered Sale Deed dated 20.03.1957, produced as per Annexure A. 2. Heard Sri Mahantesh R. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Hanumareddy learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Sri. G.I. Gachchinamath, learned counsel for respondent Nos.7 to 10. Perused the materials on record. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6647 WP No. 100524 of 2024 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that, they had purchased the property in question under the registered Sale Deed dated 21.02.1957 from its earlier owner-Pavadeppa Jalihal. Based on the said Sale Deed, M.E.No.1537 dated 20.01.1961 was effected, and the name of the purchaser i.e. Ningappa Bhimappa Karigonnavar-the father of the petitioners herein came to be mutated in the revenue records. M.E.No.2601 dated 03.11.1978, produced as per Annexure C again discloses the name of purchaser Ningappa Bhimappa Karigonnavar. 4. As per Annexure D, respondent No.7 has submitted a representation to enter the name of the occupants on the basis of the registered Gift Deed said to have been executed by Pavadeppa Jalihal, in favour of his father-in-law-Satteppa Karigonnavar. It is stated that, on the basis of the registered Gift Deed dated 09.06.1971, M.E.No.2173/A dated 09.06.1971 came to be certified. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners had approached the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal seeking deletion of the mutation entry. The said prayer was rejected by the Assistant Commissioner on the ground of inordinate delay in seeking to set aside the mutation - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6647 WP No. 100524 of 2024 entry. The said order was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, who passed the impugned order, produced as per Annexure J, dismissing the revision on the ground that, there are disputed facts, and there is inordinate delay of about 44 years in claming the relief. Therefore, it is only the Civil Court that can decide the rights of the parties. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. After hearing both the parties on merits, and on consideration of materials placed before the Court, it is found that, initially M.E.No.1537 dated 20.01.1961 came to be certified on the basis of the registered Sale Deed. However, it is stated that the original Sale Deed is not available with the petitioners. The contesting respondents are relying on the registered Gift Deed said to have been executed by the very same Pavadeppa Jalihal in favour of Satteppa Karigonnavar, upon which, M.E.No.2173/A dated 09.06.1971 was certified. There is serious dispute with regard to execution of the registered Sale Deed, and the registered Gift Deed relied on by the petitioners and the contesting respondents respectively. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6647 WP No. 100524 of 2024 There were contrary mutation entries effected at different point of time. 6. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents produced copy of the plaint in O.S.No.2/2016 filed before the learned Civil Judge, Savadatti by the petitioners, seeking declaration of their title on the basis of the registered Sale Deed, and for other consequential reliefs. The Civil Court is seized of the matter to consider, as to whether the petitioners herein being the plaintiffs before the Trial Court, are entitled for declaratory reliefs or not. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the said suit came to be dismissed for default i.e. for non-prosecution on 06.07.2019. Therefore, it is clear that even though the petitioners have approached the Civil Court seeking declaration of their title and for consequential reliefs by filing the suit, the same is dismissed for default i.e. for non-prosecution. 7. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, while passing the impugned orders highlighted inordinate delay in challenging the mutation entry, and also observed that there is disputed question of facts regarding two - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6647 WP No. 100524 of 2024 registered deeds; i.e. one is registered Sale Deed, and another one is registered Gift Deed, and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner. 8. When there is disputed question of facts, it is not fair on the part of this Court to determine the rights of the parties, as it is only the Civil Court which can exercise jurisdiction to consider such contentions of the parties and give a finding. Hence, I am of the opinion that the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17