- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16804 WP No. 107526 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.107526 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. GEETHA W/O SIDDESH AINAPUR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE AND HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SANMATI NAGAR, KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURUDEV I. GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-1. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580 008. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580 008. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.10 16:35:49 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16804 WP No. 107526 of 2025 4. THE TAHASILDAR, ALNAVAR, TQ. ALNAVAR, DIST. DHARWAD-580 008. 5. THE SENIOR SUB-REGISTRAR, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD-580 008. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 TO REMOVE THE REMARK “GOVERNMENT RESTRICTIONS” OR ANY SUCH IMPEDIMENT FROM THE ONLINE PORTAL OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND THE OFFICE OF THE SUB- REGISTRAR, DHARWAD, IN RESPECT OF LAND BEARING SY. NO.118/2 MEASURING 3 ACRES 2 GUNTAS, ARAVATAGI VILLAGE, TALUK: ALNAVAR, DISTRICT: DHARWAD, THEREBY ENABLING THE PETITIONER TO EXECUTE A LAWFUL SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF WILLING PURCHASER; AWARD SUITABLE COMPENSATION TO THE PETITIONER FOR THE FINANCIAL LOSS AND HARDSHIP SUFFERED DUE TO THE INACTION, NEGLIGENCE AND DERELICTION OF DUTY BY RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 TO INITIATE APPROPRIATE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 FOR FAILURE TO DISCHARGE THEIR STATUTORY DUTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16804 WP No. 107526 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. This petition is filed seeking writ of mandamus to direct respondents No.2 to 5 to remove the remark ‘Government Restrictions’ or any other impediment from Online portal of the Revenue Department and of the Office of the Sub Registrar, Darwad in respect of Survey No.118/2 measuring 3-Acre 2-Guntas in Aravatagi village, Taluk Alnavar, to enable the petitioner to execute the lawful sale deed in favour of the willing purchaser. 2. The petitioner has also sought suitable compensation from the respondents for the financial loss and hardship suffered due to inaction, negligence and dereliction of duty by respondents No.2 to 5. A further direction is sought to direct respondent No.1 to initiate disciplinary proceeding against respondents No.2 to 5 for their failure to discharge the statutory duties in accordance with law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16804 WP No. 107526 of 2025 3. Certain facts borne out from the records are as under: 3.1 The petitioner purchased property bearing Survey No.118/2 measuring 3-Acres 2-Guntas in Aravatagi village, Taluk Alnavar. The sale deed was registered on 29.06.2013 and petitioner's name is entered in the property records pursuant to sale deed. When the sale deed was executed and registered and the mutation was certified based on the sale deed, there was no objection whatsoever from the respondents-State or any of the officers from the Revenue Department. 3.2 Thereafter, the petitioner who intended to sell the property to the willing purchaser, approached the office of the Sub Registrar to upload the draft sale deed as required under law. The system did not accept the sale deed with a display which reads as under; - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16804 WP No. 107526 of 2025 ‘Government Restriction, which cannot be transacted’. 3.3 The petitioner approached the Tahasildar to remove the said ‘Government Restriction’. The Tahsildar on considering the materials on record, forwarded his recommendation to the Assistant Commissioner stating that there are no such restrictions in respect to the property. The Assistant Commissioner did not take any action pursuant to the recommendation. Hence, the petitioner has approached before this Court. 4. The Court vide order dated 28.10.2025 has directed the Assistant Commissioner to file an affidavit explaining the steps taken to remove the restrictions in the property records or to explain as to why the restrictions cannot be removed. The Court also issued a notice stating that in case, the explanation is not satisfactory, why cost of ₹15,000/- shall not be imposed on the Assistant Commissioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16804 WP No. 107526 of 2025 5. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Court, the Assistant Commissioner has filed an affidavit on 05.11.2025. The Assistant Commissioner has received a letter from Tahsildar on 02.09.2025 and wrote a letter to the Tahsildar on 08.09.2025 to submit a clear opinion. The document dated 08.09.2025 which is said to be the letter addressed to the Tahsildar, Alnavar is produced as Document No.1 and one more document dated 31.10.2025 said to have been addressed to the Tahsildar is also produced as Document No.2. From the said Document No.1, it appears that the Assistant Commissioner has noticed some errors in the recommendation and directed the Tahsildar to submit the recommendation after producing the records as per the checklist prescribed. Then on 31.10.2025, it appears he has addressed one more letter to the Tahsildar, reminding the Tahsildar to furnish the proposal and thereafter on 03.11.2025, he has issued one more letter to the Tahsildar asking the Tahsildar to produce certain records and to furnish his opinion. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16804 WP No. 107526 of 2025 6. The learned Additional Government Advocate has produced certain documents along with the memo. The document dated 05.11.2025 reveals that the Tahsildar has addressed the letter to the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Dharwad to furnish the records relating to Sy.No.37 (old) and Sy.No.118 of Aravatagi Village, Taluk Alnavar. The Conservator of Forest on 04.11.2025 has also responded to the said document sought by the Tahsildar, Document dated 04.01.1968 is not available and Document dated 31.07.1976 is available and same is furnished. 7. The document dated 31.07.1976 would indicate that the property is de-notified and it is vested with the Revenue Department and Mutation Entry No.11 is also produced by the Tahsildar, would indicate that in 1973, the property is granted to the Basaveshwara Housing Co- operative Society for 30 years on lease basis. 8. On 07.11.2025, the Tahsildar has addressed a letter to the Conservator of Forest to produce the document - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16804 WP No. 107526 of 2025 dated 04.01.1968. It is admitted that there is no response from the Forest Department. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the Mutation Entry No.14 dated 29.07.1978, which reveals that the name of the society is entered in the property records by deleting the name of the State Government and Forest Department. In addition to that learned counsel would also refer to the order dated 20.09.1978 which refers to the mutation based on the order dated 29.01.1982 recording the society's name as the owner of the property. The Mutation Entry No.17 is not disputed by the State. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that the Assistant commissioner/ respondent No.3 in terms of order dated 10.03.2024 marked at Annexure-E has removed Government restrictions in respect of Sy.No.118/2 measuring 3 acre 2 guntas. The Assistant Commissioner has not disputed this order marked at Annexure-E. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16804 WP No. 107526 of 2025 11. From the records referred to above and chronology of events referred to above, it is apparent that the property is not subjected to any Government restriction. Annexure-G, the order for conversion dated 24.04.2023 would also reveal that the property bearing Sy.No.117 is ordered to be converted for commercial use. 12. From the aforementioned records, it is apparent that the Assistant Commissioner could not have refused to delete the Government restriction and should have facilitated the said transaction. 13. This being the position, the Court is of the view that the direction has to be issued to respondent No.3 to delete the Government restriction and should enable the petitioner to sell the property to the willing purchaser. 14. The Assistant Commissioner who has issued an order on 10.03.2024 by deleting the Government restriction in respect of similar property could not have insisted for - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16804 WP No. 107526 of 2025 more documents from the Tahsildar. The intention appears to harass the petitioner who is a senior citizen. 15. Under these circumstances, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. The 3rd respondent/Assistant Commissioner shall pay cost of ₹25,000/- to the petitioner. iii. The respondents shall take necessary steps to remove the Government restrictions, appearing in the OnLine system. iv. Compliance shall be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM, CLK CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 34