- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9954-DB WA No. 100628 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO. 100628 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SHRI ANIL S/O. SURESH VIBHUTE, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHIRGAON VILLAGE-591201, TAL: CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. PADMAVATI W/O. NINGAPPA HORATTI, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOMEMAKER, R/O. MOLE VILLAGE-591223, TAL: KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI NINGAPPA S/O. PARUSHURAM HORATTI, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOLE VILLAGE-591223, TAL: KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. SHRI AAMSHIDD S/O. PARUSHURAM HORATTI, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOLE VILLAGE-591223, TAL: KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 4. SHRI KRISHNA S/O. BHIMRAO KADAM, AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. PAMALDINNI VILLAGE–591307, TAL: GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9954-DB WA No. 100628 of 2024 5. SHRI MAYAPPA S/O. RAMU BAGI, AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KERUR VILLAGE–591201, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. SHRI NAGARAJ S/O. MAHADEV HIPPARAGI, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. HOSUR VILLAGE–587311, TAL: RABAKAVI, DIST. BAGALKOTE. 7. SHRI SANJEEV S/O. AYAPPA ASKI, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KANNAL VILLAGE–591304, TAL: ATHANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 8. SHRI TULAJAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA BADKE, AGE: 34 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOLE VILLAGE–591223, TAL: KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 9. SHRI. RAJU S/O. SADASHIV INAPUR, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHAHPUR VILLAGE, TAL: HATAKANANGALE, DIST. KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE–416109. 10. SHRI SHIVANAND S/O. TAMANNA VANDIMALI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MOLE VILLAGE–591223, TAL: KAGWAD, DIST. BELAGAVI. 11. SHRI SUNIL S/O. SHIVGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BORGAON VILLAGE–591237, TAL: NIPPANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. 12. SHRI SANJAY S/O. SHRIPAL TONE, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SHAHPUR VILLAGE, TAL: HATAKANANGALE, DIST. KOLHAPUR, MAHARASHTRA STATE–416109. 13. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9954-DB WA No. 100628 of 2024 VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. 14. THE TAHSILDAR, CHIKKODI, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI–591201. 15. SHRI RAVINDRA S/O. MURARIRAO MUTALIKDESAI, AGE: 73 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KRISH RESIDES, SOMAWAR PETH, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI–590001. 16. SMT. MRUDULADEVI D/O. MURARIRAO MUTALIKDESAI, W/O. MRUDULA DILIP SAPTRASHI, AGE: 71 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GARDEN HOMES, C.D. ROAD, OPP. SHUBANGAN HOTEL, MUMBAI (W), MAHARASHTRA STATE–400052. 17. SHRI SURAJ S/O. BALU TAJIM, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. JATRATTI VILLAGE–591237, TAL: NIPPANI, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PALLAVI PACHCHAPURE, ADV. FOR R1 TO R12; SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R13 & R14; SRI. MAHANTESH R. PATIL, ADV. FOR R16; NOTICE TO R15 AND R17 SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 13/11/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.105673/2024 BY ALLOWING THE TOP NOTED APPEAL TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON IA, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9954-DB WA No. 100628 of 2024 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This intra-Court appeal is filed challenging order dated 13.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.105673/2024 (KLR-RES). 2. Sri Shivraj S.Balloli, learned counsel for the appellant submits that respondent No.16 executed power of attorney in favour of respondent No.15 with regard to the property in question and the said power of attorney holder executed agreement of sale in favour of the appellant on 29.11.2023. It is submitted that immediately after the execution of the agreement of sale in favour of the appellant, respondent No.15 executed the sale deed in favour of respondents No.1 to 12 in respect of subject property. The appellant filed suit and the trial Court granted ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the said property. Respondents No.1 to 12 approached the jurisdictional Tahsildar for effecting revenue records in their name which was opposed by the appellant. The Tahsildar upholds the objections rejected the application for effecting - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9954-DB WA No. 100628 of 2024 the names in the revenue record. It is further submitted that the respondents without exhausting the remedies available under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘Act’, for short) filed the writ petition and the learned Single Judge allowed the same. It is also submitted that the learned Single Judge ought to have relegated the petitioners to file an appeal. It is contended that the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the revenue authorities to maintain the name of vendor in the revenue record till disposal of the suit. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. 3. Per contra, Smt.Pallavi Pachchapure, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 12, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents No.13 and 14 and Sri Mahantesh R.Patil, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.16 supports the order of the learned Single Judge and seeks to dismiss the same. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, meticulously perused the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9954-DB WA No. 100628 of 2024 material available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission advanced. 5. The undisputed fact between the parties are that respondent No.16 is the owner of land bearing Sy.No.17/1 to the extent of 54 acres situated at Giragaon village, Chikodi Taluk, Belagavi District. The records indicate that respondent No.16 executed power of attorney in favour of respondent No.15 to deal with the property in question. Based on the power of attorney, respondent No.15 appears to have executed agreement of sale dated 29.11.2023 in favour of the appellant. To enforce the rights under the said agreement, the appellant filed O.S.No.395/2023 and the same is pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi for adjudication. The records indicate that the owner of the land executed registered sale deed in favour of respondents No.1 to 13 on 01.12.2023 and based on the sale deed, the purchasers approached the jurisdictional Tahsildar to effect their names in the revenue record. It appears the appellant has raised the objection to effect the names of the purchaser in revenue record. The Tahsildar upheld the objection on the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9954-DB WA No. 100628 of 2024 ground that the suit is pending before the Civil Court for specific performance of the contract. The order of the Tahsildar was assailed in writ petition. Learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by the Tahsildar and the writ of mandamus issued to the Tahsildar to enter the name of the purchaser in respect of land in question. 6. It is not in dispute that respondents No.1 to 12 are the owners of the property in question by virtue of registered sale deed dated 01.12.2023 and it is bounden duty of the revenue authorities under Section 128 and 129 of the Act to enter their names in the register of mutation. The learned Single Judge taking note of the provision of law issued writ of mandamus to the revenue authorities, we do not find any error in the direction issued by the learned Single Judge calling for interference. The contention of the appellant that the petitioners were required to prefer an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar has no merit as the appellant’s right with regard to the subject property is still under adjudication, hence there is no error in entertaining the writ petition by the learned Single Judge. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9954-DB WA No. 100628 of 2024 7. For the aforementioned reasons, we are of the considered view that the appeal is devoid of merit, the same is dismissed. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE CLK /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49