- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13672 WP No. 104371 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO.104371 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SHRI P.H. KOTRESH S/O. P.H. PAMPANNA, AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MALLANAYKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HYALYA MAJURA, TQ. KOTTURU, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583 134. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANAPATI M. BHAT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYANAGAR, OFFICE AT VIJAYANAGAR-HOSAPETE-583 201. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HARAPANAHALLI SUB-DIVISION, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583 131. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, KOTTURU, TQ. KOTTURU, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583 134. 5. SHRI KALLGUDI CHOUDAPPA S/O. CHOUDAPPA, AGE. 79 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.10.15 10:05:31 +0100 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13672 WP No. 104371 of 2025 R/O. MALLANAYKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HYALYA MAJURA, TQ. KOTTURU, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583 134. 6. SMT. CHOUDAMMA W/O. LATE NAGARAJ, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. MALLANAYKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HYALYA MAJURA, TQ. KOTTURU, DIST. VIJAYANAGAR-583 134. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. NEELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OR DIRECTIONS, WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDER DATED 01.08.2024 IN NO. REVENUE. APPEAL/36/2024-25 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER VIJAYANGAR DISTRICT-HOSAPETE/RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-D; WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDER DATED 23.05.2024 IN NO. R.A(KOTTURU)/C.R.364/2023 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HARAPPANAHALLI SUB-DIVISION, HARAPPANAHALLI/RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-C; WRIT IN THE NATURE OR CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDER DATED 08.07.2020 IN NO. REVENUE/RTC DISPUTE/14/2019-20 PASSED BY THE TAHASILDAR, KOTTURU/RESPONDENT NO.4 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO DIRECT THE TAHASILDAR, KOTTURU/RESP.NO.4 HEREIN TO ENTER MUTATION ON THE LAND SY.NO.555/3 MEASURING 3.67 ACRE WHICH IS SITUATED AT HYLAYA VILLAGE OF KOTTUR TALUK WHICH PURCHASED BY THE PETITIONER THROUGH REGISTERED SALE DEED. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13672 WP No. 104371 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) 1. This petition is filed assailing the order dated 01.08.2025 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, the order dated 23.05.2024 passed by respondent No.3-Assistant Commissioner and also the order dated 08.07.2020 passed by respondent No.4-Tahasildar. 2. The petitioner has also sought writ of mandamus against respondent No.4- Tashildhar to enter the name of the petitioner in respect of Survey No.555/3 measuring 3.67 acres in Hyalya village, Kottur Taluk said to have been purchased by the petitioner under the registered sale deed executed by respondent No.5. 3. The facts narrated in the writ petition would reveal that petitioner claims to have purchased property from respondent No.5 under registered sale deed - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13672 WP No. 104371 of 2025 dated 21.03.2020. The property purchased according to the petitioner is Sy.No.555/3 measuring 3.67 acres in Hyalya village. The Tahasildar refused to certify the mutation based on the registered sale deed on the premise that a suit is pending in OS No.101 of 2020. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have also taken the same view and have passed the impugned orders referred to above. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the property is purchased before institution of the suit. As the suit was filed on 16.06.2020, the revenue officials have noticed that the Civil Court has passed an interim order against the seller as well as the purchaser and thus, declined to certify the mutation based on the registered sale deed. 5. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent would submit that the suit is filed for partition and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13672 WP No. 104371 of 2025 separate possession; the property in question is the ancestral property; respondent No.5 could not have sold the property and moreover, as there is an interim order against the seller as well as the purchaser, the revenue officials are justified in not certifying the mutation based on the sale deed. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar and perused the records. 7. It appears that as on the date of execution of the sale deed referred to above, the property stood in the name of respondent No.5 and when this property was sold under the registered sale deed dated 21.03.2020, which is registered on 05.05.2020, the suit was not pending. The suit is filed on 16.06.2020 i.e., after the registration. 8. Thus, interim order granted by the trial Court restraining the purchaser and the seller from alienating the property further, does not come in - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13672 WP No. 104371 of 2025 the way of certification of the mutation entry based on the registered seal deed. To that extent, the impugned orders have to be set-aside. However, it is made clear that the order directing the petitioner's name to be entered in the property record, should not be construed as having reflected anything on the validity of the sale deed dated 21.03.2020. 9. Whether respondent No.5 had absolute right to sell the property or not and whether the property is the ancestral property or not, are to be decided by the Civil Court where the suit is pending without reference to the orders passed by the Tahasildar, Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:13672 WP No. 104371 of 2025 ii. The impugned order dated 01.08.2025 passed by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner, the order dated 23.05.2024 passed by respondent No.3- Assistant Commissioner and also the order dated 08.07.2020 passed by respondent No.4-Tahasildar, are quashed. iii. Respondent No.4 is directed to enter the name of the petitioner in the property record pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 21.03.2020. iv. It is made clear that such entry shall be subject to the result of the suit. v. All contentions on merit left open. vi. Interim order passed against the petitioner in the suit will be operative against the petitioner till the disposal of the suit. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE AM/ CT:BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 25.