- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9702 WP No. 105663 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.105663 OF 2018 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. HONNURAMMA D/O. LATE SANNAIMAMSAB, AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: CHARAKUNATA VILLAGE, TQ & DIST: BALLARI – 583 104. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GODE NAGARAJA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI – 583 101, TQ & DIST: BALLARI. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BALLARI SUB DIVISION, TQ & DIST: BALLARI – 583 101. 3. THE TAHASILDAR, TQ & DIST: BALLARI – 583 101. 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, RUPANAGUDI, TQ & DIST: BALLARI – 583 101. HONNURSAB SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 5. SMT.RASOOL BEE W/O. LATE HONNURSAB, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9702 WP No. 105663 of 2018 MASTHANSAB SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS, 6. SRI. HONNURSAB S/O. LATE MASTANSAB, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 7. SRI. PEERAVALI S/O. LATE MASTANSAB, AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. 8. SRI. SIDDIQ SAB S/O. LATE DODDA IMAMSAB, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE. ALL ARE R/O: SHANKAR BANDE VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: BALLARI – 583 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. RAVI HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5 TO R8) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN APPEAL NO.102/2012-2013 DATED 20.06.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-N INSOFAR AS SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF RESPONDENT NO.2 IS CONCERNED AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN SUM/KUM/APPEAL/526/ 2010-112 DATED 08.05.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-"G", IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9702 WP No. 105663 of 2018 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: A. Issue an order or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 in appeal No.102/2012-2013 dated 20.06.2018 vide Annexure-N. Insofar as setting aside the order of respondent No.2 is concerned and confirm the order passed by the respondent No.2 in Sum/ Kum/ Appeal/526/ 2010-112 dated 08.05.2012 vide Annexure-"G. B. Grant such other order or direction as deemed fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner claims to be the daughter of late Sanna Imam Sab. The facts which are not in dispute are that one Shri Dodda Hussainappa of Asundi Village, had two sons, namely Dodda Imam Sab and Sanna Imam Sab, Dodda Imam Sab had purchased an extent of 4.87 ½ acres in Survey No.384A of Asundi village under registered sale deed dated 17.04.1947. Similarly, Sana Imam Sab had also purchased an identical extent of 4.87 ½ acres in the same survey number on the same day. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9702 WP No. 105663 of 2018 petitioner claims that her father, Sanna Imam Sab, had settled his property in her favour, and that she has continued to be the owner of the said property. On coming to know of certain mutation entries made in the year 1991-92, the petitioner had approached the Assistant Commissioner for setting aside the said mutation entries. The Assistant Commissioner had set aside the mutation entries, which were challenged by respondent Nos. 5 to 8 before the Deputy Commissioner, who had passed the impugned order dated 20.06.2018, which is under challenge before this Court. 3. Shri Gode Nagaraja, learned counsel for the petitioner, would continue to submit that there being a settlement by the father Sanna Imam Sab in her favour in the year 1957, the petitioner has continued to be the owner of the said property. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner ought not to have set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9702 WP No. 105663 of 2018 while doing so, the Assistant Commissioner has virtually come to the conclusion that there are two earlier sale deeds; the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable. As such, the Deputy Commissioner has given a finding on title, which is not sustainable, and on that ground, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed. 4. Shri Ravi Hegde., learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 5 to 8, submits that the said Sanna Imam Sab, during his lifetime on 04.05.1968, sold his property in favour of Doneppa S/o N.Venkatappa and upon the death of Doneppa S/o N.Venkatappa, the son Thimmappa had sold the property in favour of the husband of respondent No.5, father of respondent Nos.6 & 7 and Respondent No. 8. 5. It is in pursuance thereof that respondent Nos.5 to 8 became the owners of the entire extent of land in Sy.No.384B measuring 9.75 acres and a partition being effected on 16.04.1992, the said properties - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9702 WP No. 105663 of 2018 were allotted to the share of the husband of respondent No.5 measuring 3.15 acres, father of respondent Nos.6 to 7 measuring 3.45 acres and respondent No.8 measuring 3.15 acres and it is in pursuance thereof that mutation register entries in the years 1991-1992 and 1998-1999 had been carried out. 6. He submits that respondent Nos.5 to 8 have also filed a separate suit for declaration and injunction in O.S.No.116/2013 and taking into account these factors, the Deputy Commissioner has set-aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and as such, he submitted that there is nothing wrong in the said order requiring interference at the hands of this Court. 7. Heard Shri Gode Nagaraja., learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Ravi Hegde., learned counsel for caveator/respondent No.5 to 8. Perused the papers. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9702 WP No. 105663 of 2018 8. The facts as such not being in dispute as regards the purchase by Dodda Imam Sab and Sanna Imam Sab, what is in issue is the sale deed said to have been executed by Sanna Imam Sab in the year 1968 in favour of Doneppa and thereafter by Doneppa's son Thimmappa in favour of husband of respondent No.5, father of respondent Nos.6 & 7 and Respondent No. 8 i.e., Honnur Sab, Mastan Sab and Siddiq Sab as detailed hereinabove. 9. The challenge which had been made by the petitioner was the sale in favour of mutation register entries in favour of Honnur Sab, Mastan Sab and Siddiq Sab in the year 1981-1982 and the subsequent partition amongst respondent Nos.5 to 8 in the year 1991- 1992. The petitioner, having approached the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2010-11, filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. However, the earlier sales of 1968 and 1981 were not mentioned, and it is taking into account that these - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9702 WP No. 105663 of 2018 factors were not available for the Assistant Commissioner's consideration. The Deputy Commissioner has set-aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and made the parties bound by final orders passed in O.S.No.116 of 2013. 10. Shri Gode Nagaraja., learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has also filed another suit in O.S.No.111/2018, which is also pending consideration. His submission is that these alleged sale deeds of the year 1968 and 1981 are fabricated and forged documents and they do not confer any title on the purchasers. 11. Be that as it may, the parties are before the Civil Court in two different litigations i.e., O.S.No.116/2013 and O.S.No.111/2018, which are pending adjudication, where the rights of the parties would have to be established. What the Deputy Commissioner has only done is set-aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner on the ground that the - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9702 WP No. 105663 of 2018 sale deeds of the year 1968 and 1981 had not been referred to by the petitioner in the appeal filed before the Assistant Commissioner, which also cannot be disputed. The Deputy Commissioner has not adverted to the title of the parties, but has only adverted to the facts of the sale deeds of the year 1968 and 1981, not being on record on the file of the Assistant Commissioner when the order of the Assistant Commissioner has been passed. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and as such, I pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is dismissed. ii) The parties shall be bound by the final orders passed in O.S.No.116/2013 and O.S.No.111/2018. Since the suits are pending before the same Court, the parties are at liberty to file an application for clubbing, which shall be considered favourably by the trial Court. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9702 WP No. 105663 of 2018 iii) Considering that the earlier suit is of the year 2013, the trial Court is requested to dispose of the said suits as early as possible. iv) The submissions of Shri Gode Nagaraja and Shri Ravi Hegde, learned counsels that the parties and the counsels will co- operate with the trial Court for expeditious disposal of the suits without seeking any unnecessary adjournment, are placed on record. v) The Deputy Commissioner, not having adverted to the title of the parties, or passed any orders on the title, the trial Court is directed to independently consider the claim of all the parties and pass necessary orders on merits, without being influenced by the orders of the Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner or by this Court. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM/- CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 65