- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11497 WP No. 104423 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 104423 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI BHIMAPPA S/O. RAMAPPA KOKATE SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., SHRI RAVI S/O. BHIMAPPA KOKATE, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEKHALI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI RAMESH S/O. BHIMAPPA KOKATE, AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O MEKHALI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI …PETITIONERS (BY SRIYUTHS. A.S. PATIL, SABEEL AHMED AND SUHAS K HOSAMANI, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY ITS SECRETARY, TO DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGLAURU 560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI DISTRICT, BELAGAVI 590001, TQ. / DIST. BELAGAVI. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHIKODI SUB DIVISION, CHIKODI, TQ. CHIKODI, DIST.BELAGAVI. Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11497 WP No. 104423 of 2025 4. THE TAHASILDAR RAIBAG TALUKA, RAIBAG-591312, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR RAIBAG-591312, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. SHRI KRISHNA S/O. RAMAPPA KOKATE, AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MEKHALI, TQ. RAIBAG, DIST. BELAGAVI. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT SAINATH CHAWL, GANDHI NAGAR, LALJI PADA CHANDRAKANT GOSALIYA ROAD, NEAR HANUMAN TEMPLE, KANDIVALI, WEST MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA STATE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN NO. RB/RTA/101/2022-23 DATED 17.07.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE -E CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.04.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 IN NO.RTS/AP-312/2015-16 AS PER ANNEXURE-C II) ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION WHICH DEEMS FIT TO GRANT BY THIS HON BLE COURT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11497 WP No. 104423 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) accepts notice for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Notice to Respondent No. 6 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following reliefs: i. A Writ of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, to quash the impugned order passed by Respondent No. 2 in No. RB/RTA/101/2022-23 dated 17.07.2023, as per Annexure-E, confirming the order dated 29.04.2022 passed by Respondent No. 3 in No. RTS/AP- 312/2015-16, as per Annexure-C. ii. To issue any other appropriate writ, order, or direction, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The petitioners claim that the property bearing R.S. No. 39/4/2, measuring an extent of 5 acres and 15 guntas, situated at Mekhali Village, Raibag Taluka, stood in the name of their father from the year 1980-81 onwards. 4. Respondent No. 6, who is the brother of the petitioners' father, approached the official respondents seeking - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11497 WP No. 104423 of 2025 cancellation of MR Entry No. H152/2011-12, effected on 27.01.2012, contending that the entry in the name of the petitioners could not have been made, as the petitioners had no exclusive right to the said property. The application was allowed. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner, challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner, which was dismissed. The petitioners have now approached this Court, challenging the said dismissal. 5. Sri Sabeel Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that Respondent No. 6 has no connection with the petitioners’ claim over the property. It is further submitted that a relinquishment deed had been executed by Respondent No. 6 in favour of the petitioners' father, pursuant to which their father became the absolute owner of the property. Upon his death, the property was mutated in the name of the petitioners. 6. It is contended that the mutation entry cannot be invalidated under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, "the Act"). If Respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11497 WP No. 104423 of 2025 No. 6 was aggrieved, he ought to have instituted civil proceedings, rather than invoking revenue jurisdiction under Section 136. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel and perused the records, it is not in dispute that Respondent No. 6 is the brother of the petitioners’ father, it is also evident that the petitioners’ sole claim to the property is based on the said relinquishment deed executed by Respondent No. 6 in favour of their father. However, the relinquishment deed in question is admittedly notarized and not registered. The execution of the deed has been denied by Respondent No. 6 an aspect duly considered by the Deputy Commissioner during the revision proceedings. 8. Since the petitioners’ claim arises solely under an unregistered relinquishment deed, and through inheritance, I am of the considered view that Respondent No. 6 was entitled to invoke his remedy under Section 136 of the Act. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11497 WP No. 104423 of 2025 9. The challenged mutation pertains to the year 2011-12, and was based on inheritance following the death of the petitioners’ father. The entire property was mutated exclusively in the name of the petitioners, even though from 1980-81, the property stood in the name of their father, who, at best, could be said to have held the property in trust for the joint family, including Respondent No. 6. 10. Therefore, the mutation effected in 2012 exclusively in the name of the petitioners was not justified and has rightly been challenged and set aside by both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner. I find no infirmity in the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE VB Ct:pa List No.: 1 Sl No.: 75