- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568 WP No. 104417 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 104417 OF 2025 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SADASHIV S/O. SIDDAPPA KURUBAR, AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MADAVPUR, VADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590005. 2. PARASHURAM S/O. SIDDAPPA KURUBAR, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MADAVPUR, VADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590005. 3. RENUKA SHIVALING EGGENNAVAR, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. AT POST HULLOLI, HUKKERI, BELAGAVI-591305. 4. KALPANA BHARATESH MARENNAVAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O PATIL GALLI, MACCHE, TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590014. 5. SAVITRI W/O. RAVI KURUBAR, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SANIKOPPA, TQ: BAILHONGAL, BELAGAVI-591125. 6. SHRI BASAVARAJ GUNDU KURUBAR, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. 141, LAXMI GALLI, OLD BELAGAVI (JHUNE BELAGAVI), BELAGAVI-590005. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHREEVATSA S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. RENUKA W/O. GAJANAN NAIK, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.07.16 14:35:16 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568 WP No. 104417 of 2025 R/O. 4TH CROSS, BHAGYANAGAR, BELAGAVI-590006. 2. SHRI RISHIKESH GAJANAN NAIK, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. 4TH CROSS, BHAGYANAGAR, BELAGAVI-590006. 3. SMT. POOJA GAJANAN NAIK, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 4TH CROSS, BHAGYANAGAR, BELAGAVI-590006. 4. SMT. PRIYANKA GAJANAN NAIK, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. 4TH CROSS, BHAGYANAGAR, BELAGAVI-590006. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590001. 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI, COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590001. 7. THE TEHSILDAR, BELAGAVI, RISALDAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R5-R7; SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO (a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27.05.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 IN RB/RTA/237/2024-25 CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 IN R.A. NO.74/2024 DATED 22/11/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND A1. (b) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 TO ENTER THE DETAILS OF THE INTERIM PROTECTION EXTENDED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN RFA NO.100263/20 AND ETC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568 WP No. 104417 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed by the 5th respondent/Tahasildar confirming the order passed by the 6th respondent-Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No.74/2024 to enter the names of respondent Nos.1 to 4 as per the registered sale deed dated 19.11.2013. 2. According to the petitioners, the agricultural land bearing R.S. No.56/*/1 measuring 3 acres situated at Madhavpur, Vadagaon, Belagavi, belong to their ancestors and they are the legal heirs of Siddappa Kurubar. The said land was purchased through a registered sale deed on 13.10.1955 and accordingly the original owner’s name was mutated in the revenue records. It is the further case of the petitioners that after the death of the original owner Siddappa Kurubar, his legal heirs namely Mayawwa, Gundu, Sadashiv and Parashuram came to be mutated as per the Mutation Entry No.2845 dated 20.02.1999 and after the death of his wife Mayawwa Kurubar, names of Gundu Kurbar and petitioner Nos.1 and 2 continued in the Mutation Entry No.3035. It is submitted that this being - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568 WP No. 104417 of 2025 the case and the names of the petitioners being reflected along with the name of Gundu Kurubar, an appeal came to be filed before the 6th respondent which came to be allowed and the order was not implemented. Thereafter, the said order dated 01.07.2014 remained unchallenged till date. It is stated further that respondent Nos.1 to 4 claim that their predecessor Gajanan Piraji Naik purchased the entire property to an extent of 3 acres by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 19.11.2013 through one Praveen Uday Honnashetti claiming to be the GPA holder of deceased Gundu Siddappa Kurubar. The petitioners are joint owners in possession and cultivation of the agricultural land mentioned hereinabove to the entire extent of 3 acres. 3. This being the facts of the case, deceased Gundu Kurubar challenged the sale deed alleged to have been executed by his GPA-Praveen Uday Honnashetti in favour of Gajanan Piraji Naik, which is claimed to be a fabricated power of attorney so also the sale deed. The same was pending in O.S. No.116/2014. During the pendency of the said suit, the plaintiff Gundu Siddappa Kurubar died and thereafter the suit came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568 WP No. 104417 of 2025 the legal heirs of Gundu Siddappa Kurubar preferred an appeal challenging the same in RFA No.100263/20221. The said appeal came to be allowed and the matter came to be remitted back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. In the said appeal, at para 11 of the judgment, this Court passed an order as under: “ ….. Under these circumstances, the respondents are restrained from alienating the suit schedule properties until further order’s passed by the trial Court.” 4. The petitioners have also stated that they have challenged the alleged sale deed executed on 19.11.2013 in favour of the respondents by filing O.S. No.88 of 2014 before the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi, which is pending adjudication. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 had submitted an application before respondent No.7 for change of entry which came to be rejected before the Tahasildar on 06.06.2023. The respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before the respondent No.6 in R.A.No.74/2024, whereby the respondent No.6 without considering the facts and documents, proceeded to allow the 1 Disposed of on 16.12.2024 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568 WP No. 104417 of 2025 appeal by order dated 22.11.2024, directing the entry of the names of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in respect of the properties of the petitioners. The petitioners preferred revision petition before the respondent No.5-Deputy Commissioner, which came to be dismissed. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court. 5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the orders passed by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 are illegal and contrary to the remand order passed by this Court in RFA proceedings, wherein this Court clearly stated that respondents are restrained from alienating the suit schedule properties till further orders to be passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.116/2014, while remanding the mater back for fresh consideration. However, without considering this aspect, respondent No.6 has erroneously passed an order based on the judgment in O.S.No.116/2014 by entering the names of the respondents in the revenue extract. Consequently, the petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order, whereby the First Appellate Court has passed an order restraining the alienation of the properties until the disposal of the suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568 WP No. 104417 of 2025 6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting parties vehemently contends that the respondents have acted in accordance with law, having registered a sale deed lawfully and obtained dismissal of O.S.No.116/2014, which does not call for interference, as the revenue entry has been made subject to the outcome of the original suit proceedings, which are still pending before this Court, wherein a direction was given to the respondents not be alienate the suit schedule properties, till the orders are passed by the trial Court. All these facts are not disputed by either parties, and the authorities have accordingly passed the impugned order. The grievance of the petitioners is that, in the absence of an entry in revenue records as regards the clear order in the RFA restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule properties, if the respondents were to create 3rd parties rights, it would result in further hardship, inconvenience, and lead to multiplicity of proceedings in the pending suit before the trial Court. Therefore, the petitioners seek a direction for an entry to be made before the revenue authority restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule properties, so also there is no 3rd party right created which will result in the sale of properties and cause prejudice to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568 WP No. 104417 of 2025 the 3rd parties. Under the circumstance, the present petition is filed by the petitioners. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents, there is some force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, for the reason that there is no dispute with regard to the order passed in the RFA proceedings, wherein the respondents have been restrained from alienating the suit schedule properties till further orders are passed by the trial Court. Under the circumstances, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are duty bound to make appropriate entries in the revenue records, which shall be reflected in the Record of Rights. Any 3rd party right being created, would hamper the rights of the petitioners, and any such rights created by the respondents in favour of 3rd parties would be contrary to the order passed in RFA No.100263/2022, so also any such rights created by the respondents to create such rights in favour of 3rd parties or actions taken by the respondents to 3rd parties, would be in violation of the said order. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary is required to be made in the revenue records in compliance - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568 WP No. 104417 of 2025 with the order passed in RFA No. 100263/2022. Accordingly, I pass the following: ORDER i. Petition is disposed off, in pursuance of the order so passed by the respondent Nos.5 and 6, which is stated to be in continuation of the earlier orders issued by them. An entry shall be made in the record of rights showing that the respondents shall not alienate the suit schedule properties, in accordance with the orders passed in RFA No.100263/2022 dated 16.12.2024. ii. It is made clear that this order is passed only with regard to the entry to be made as per the orders in RFA No.100263/2022. iii. This Court has not ventured into or delved into the merits of the matter regarding the rights of the parties. iv. All contentions are kept open. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE Kmv up to para 3 KGK till end CT-MCK