- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17083 WP No. 105277 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 105277 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: PINJARA KULAISWAMI @ KULAISAB S/O. MOULA SAB PINJARA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KURGODU, TQ: KURUGODU, DIST: BALLARI-583116. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GURUBASAVARAJ S.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BALLARI-583101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BALLARI-583101. 3. DEPUTY TASHILDAR KURUGODU, TAL: KURUGODU-583116, DIST: BALLARI. 4. REVENUE INSPECTOR KURUGODU HOBLI, KURUGODU-583116. 5. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, KURUGODU VILLAGE-583116, DIST: BALLARI. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.12.10 16:35:46 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17083 WP No. 105277 of 2023 6. SMT. JADEMMA W/O. NAGENDRAPPA D/O. LATE K. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC: HOUSE WIFE, R/O. INDIRANAGARA, KURUGODU-583116, TQ: KUROGODU, DIST: BALLARI. 7. SRI. K. NAGARAJA S/O. LATE K. BASAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. INDIRANAGARA, KURUGODU-583116, TQ: KURUGODU, DIST: BALLARI. 8. SRI. CHAND SAB S/O. SANNA MOULA SAB SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR SRI. HONNUR SAB, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRIL., R/O. BEHIND KURUGODU POLICE STATION, KURUGODU-583116, TQ: KURUGODU, DIST: BALLARI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B.BHUTE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5; SMT. SUNITHA P.KALASOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 12/04/2023 IN NO.REV.R.P.29/2022 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI, I.E., THE 1ST RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17083 WP No. 105277 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 12.04.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in a proceeding under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 19641. 3. In terms of the said order, the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the revision petition, and directed the name of contesting private respondents to be entered in the property records based on the registered Sale Deed dated 24.05.1979. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that initially the property belonged to the petitioner's father and his two brothers. There was a partition in the family, and in the said partition, the property was divided into three parts. At that time, one of the brothers was a minor, and the petitioner's father acted as his guardian. Later, after attaining majority, the brother is stated to have orally transferred his share in favour of the petitioner's father. Consequently, the 1 For short, ‘Act of 1964’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17083 WP No. 105277 of 2023 petitioner’s father’s name continued in the revenue records until 1989, when it was changed pursuant to an alleged Sale Deed dated 24.05.1979, based on the Sale Deed said to have been executed by the brother of the petitioner's father. 5. It is his further submission that entry was made without issuing notice, as such an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner challenging the mutation in favour of the predecessor of respondents No.6 and 7. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal and directed respondents No.6 and 7 to approach the competent Civil Court. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, respondents No.6 and 7 filed revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the revision petition and directed entry to be made to the property records based on the registered Sale Deed dated 24.05.1979. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of Act of 1964 is time barred and that no application has been filed seeking condonation of delay. It is his further submission that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17083 WP No. 105277 of 2023 from 1979 to 1989, no entry was made in the revenue records on the basis of alleged registered Sale Deed, and that the said Sale Deed itself is invalid. Thus, he would contend that that the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is to be upheld and respondents No.6 and 7 should be directed to approach the competent Civil Court to establish any rights they may claim over the properties. 8. It is urged that name of the alleged purchaser has not been entered in Column No.9 of the revenue records and appears only in Column No.12, as such respondents No.6 and 7 cannot claim title over the property. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting private respondents would submit that the alleged oral gift or transfer of property by the petitioner's father’s brother in favour of the petitioner’s father is not proved. Respondents No.6 and 7 have purchased the property under a registered Sale Deed dated 24.05.1979, and it was the obligation of the revenue authorities to enter the name of the purchasers in the property records. Same having not been done for 10 years does not mean that the valid title acquired under the registered Sale Deed is - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17083 WP No. 105277 of 2023 extinguished. Thus, it is urged that the Deputy Commissioner was justified in giving primacy to the registered Sale Deed over the alleged oral transfer by way of gift. 10. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records. 11. To put it in one sentence, the essence of the case is, whether the oral gift should prevail over the registered Sale Deed at this stage. The oral gift has to be established in the manner known to law before the competent Civil Court. If it is established, then probably the contesting respondents’ predecessor does not acquire any title of the property under the alleged registered Sale Deed dated 24.05.1979. 12. The question as to whether the alleged gift has taken place or not is a question of fact, which can be established before the Civil Court. 13. At this juncture, the Court is of the view that the Deputy Commissioner was justified in passing the impugned order directing the entry in the record of rights based on the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17083 WP No. 105277 of 2023 alleged Sale Deed dated 24.05.1979. Hence, this Court does not intend to interfere with the said impugned order. 14. However, it is to be made clear that this order or the order of the Deputy Commissioner should not be construed as an order having validated the alleged Sale Deed dated 24.05.1979, and at the same time, order passed by the Assistant Commissioner should not be construed as having validated the alleged gift in favour of the petitioner's father. 15. With these observations, the petition is dismissed. 16. All contentions kept open are to be decided in the suit to be instituted by the parties. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP Ct:vh List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40