- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2911 WP No. 104469 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 104469 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRIKANT S/O RAMACHANDRA GAJKOSH AGE. 73 YEARS, OCC. AGRI R/O: #1235, NEAR KANNADA MEDIUM SCHOOL TQ . DANDELI DISTRICT. UTTARA KANNADA …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C R HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT, KARWAR 581301 2. THE TAHASHILDAR JOIDA (SUPA) UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT 581186 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF TAHASHILDAR KARWAR, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA 581186. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR., AGA FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTITIARY TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT NO. PAHANI DU/ VIVA 267/2023-24, DATED. 14-03-2024 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF RESPONDENT NO. 2, THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.02.18 11:58:29 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2911 WP No. 104469 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue writ of certitiary to quash the endorsement No. Pahani Du/Viva-267/2023-24, dated 14.03.2024 issued by the office of respondent no.2, the copy of the same is produced and marked at Annexure-A. b. Issue writ of mandamus seeking direction to reconsider the representation dated 18.01.2023 by the R2, the copy of the same is produced and marked at Annexure-A1. c. Any other order in the nature of writ as this Hon’ble Court thinks fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner had entered into an agreement of sale with one Mr.Chennappa for purchase of land in Sy.No.4B/18 for a consideration of Rs.4,60,000/- on 5.4.2019. Subsequently, the said Chennappa has expired. On the basis of the agreement of sale, the petitioner had approached the respondent authorities requesting for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2911 WP No. 104469 of 2024 the entry of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. The same came to be rejected by respondent No.2 – Tahsildar vide order dated 14.3.2024. It is challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has paid most of the consideration and has been put in possession and therefore the entries in the revenue records have to be made. 4. Irrespective of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the fact remains that there is only an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner and the vendor has expired. It is for the petitioner to get a sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner and only thereafter approach respondent No.2 as rightly held by respondent No.2 in its impugned order dated 14.3.2024. Without a sale deed being executed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot claim - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:2911 WP No. 104469 of 2024 entry of the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. No grounds being made out, the Writ Petition stands dismissed at the stage of admission itself. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2