- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6867 WP No. 112361 of 2015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 112361 OF 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: GURURAJ S/O. SHIVAMURTHY BEESANAKOPPA AGE: 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O: KOUJALAGI, TQ:GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. ARADHANA V. MANVI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI DIST. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL DIVISION, DIST: BELAGAVI. 3. PARVATEVVA W/O. MUTTEPPA BHADRASHETTY, AGE:49 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O:HANDIGUND VILLAGE, TQ:RAIBAG, NOW R/O:KOUJALAGI VILLAGE, TQ: GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6867 WP No. 112361 of 2015 4. SHIVAMURTEPPA S/O. RACHAPPA BEESANAKOPPA AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: KOUJALAGI VILLAGE, TQ: GOKAK, DIST:BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3; NOTICE TO R4 - SERVED) ----- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF: A. CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO.KRA:RTA/AP/264/12-13 DATED 27.12.2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2, AT VIDE ANNEXURE-E. B. CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO.RB/RTA- 141/2013-14 DATED 06.08.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AT VIDE ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6867 WP No. 112361 of 2015 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 27.12.2013, passed by respondent No.2 - the Assistant Commissioner, Bailhongal Division, Belagavi District, produced as per Annexure-E, and the order dated 06.08.2015, passed by Respondent No.1 - the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, produced as per Annexure-F. 2. Heard Ms.Aradhana V. Manvi for Sri. Jagadish Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Dinesh M. Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondents No.1 and 2. Perused the materials on record. 3. The petitioner is challenging Annexures ‘E’ and ‘F’, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner concerned respectively, ordering to mutate the name of Respondent No.3 in respect of - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6867 WP No. 112361 of 2015 Survey No.396/1, measuring 1.05 acres situated at Koujalagi Village of Gokak Taluk. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the petitioner had filed the suit for partition and separate possession of several items of family properties, including the aforesaid disputed property, by filing a suit in O.S.No.454/2008. The said suit came to be decreed and it has reached finality. As per the decree, Survey No.396/1, the disputed property, had fallen to the share of the petitioner. Under such circumstances, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 could not have passed the order mutating the revenue records in the name of Respondent No.3. 5. Learned counsel for Respondent No.3 produced the judgment passed in O.S.No.242/2011 filed by Respondent No.3, seeking declaration that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.454/2008, is not binding on her. As per the judgment, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in part, declaring that the compromise decree - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6867 WP No. 112361 of 2015 passed in O.S.No.454/2008 before the Trial Court is not binding on the share of the plaintiff, i.e., Respondent No.3 herein. 6. When the Civil Court has declared that the decree passed in O.S.No.454/2008, allotting the disputed land in favor of the petitioner is not binding on the share of Respondent No.3, and when the Civil Court in an earlier partition suit in O.S.No.37/2008, allotted the disputed land to the share of Respondent No.3, I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the petitioner. As per the impugned orders, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner passed the same on the basis of the decree passed by the Civil Court. Hence the petition is liable to be dismissed in limine. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3