- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB WA No. 100298 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO.100298 OF 2024 (LB-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. NAGUBAI W/O. TUKARAM KALAL (SIC KALAL) AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, RESIDING AT RAITAR ONI, GURUWAR PETH, CHENNAMMA KITTUR, KITTUR TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002. 2. DEEPAK S/O. TUKARAM KALAL (SIC KALAL) AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RESIDING AT RAITAR ONI, GURUWAR PETH, CHENNAMMA KITTUR, KITTUR TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002. 3. MANJUNATH S/O. TUKARAM KALAL (SIC KALAL) AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RESIDING AT RAITAR ONI, GURUWAR PETH, CHENNAMMA KITTUR, KITTUR TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002. 4. SANTOSH S/O. TUKARAM KALAL (SIC KALAL) AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RESIDING AT RAITAR ONI, GURUWAR PETH, CHENNAMMA KITTUR, KITTUR TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002. 5. RAJ0ENDRA S/O. TUKARAM KALA (SIC KALAL) AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RESIDING AT RAITAR ONI, GURUWAR PETH, CHENNAMMA KITTUR, KITTUR TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002. Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB WA No. 100298 of 2024 6. VITHAN S/O. TUKARAM KALA (SIC KALAL) AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, RESIDING AT RAITAR ONI, GURUWAR PETH, CHENNAMMA KITTUR, KITTUR TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002. - APPELLANTS (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ABDULGAFAR S/O. BABUSAB MITTIBHAI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC. PENSIONER, RESIDING AT SOMAWAR PETH, KITTUR NOW RESIDING AT BOMMAPUR CHOWK ONI, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-590002. 2. SUBHANI S/O. BABUSAB MITTIBHAI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, RESIDING AT SOMAWAR PETH, KITTUR NOW RESIDING AT BOMMAPUR CHOWK ONI, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-590002. 3. RAMEEZA W/O. ABDUL MITTIBHAI, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, RESIDING AT SOMAWAR PETH, KITTUR NOW RESIDING AT BOMMAPUR CHOWK ONI, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-590002. 4. IRSHADAHAMAD S/O. BABUSAB MITTIBHAI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, RESIDING AT SOMAWAR PETH, KITTUR NOW RESIDING AT BOMMAPUR CHOWK ONI, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-590002. PETITIONER 1 TO 4 REPRESENTED BY THEIR POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MOHAMMADRAFIQ S/O. BABUSAB DASTIKOPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR, RESIDING AT JAMIA MASID ONI, SOMAWAR PETH, KITTUR, BAILHONGAL TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB WA No. 100298 of 2024 5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. 6. THE PRESIDENT, ZILLA PANCHAYAT COURT COMPOUND BELAGAVI-590002. 7. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TALUK PANCHAYAT, BAILHONGAL BELAGAVI-590002. 8. THE CHIEF OFFICER, TOWN PANCHAYAT, CHANNAMMA KITTUR (EARLIER KITTUR GRAM PANCHAYAT) BAILHONGAL TALUK BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002. - RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHILLEDAR, ADVOCATE AND SRI. SANTOSH B.RAWOOT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7; NOTICE TO R8 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 02-01-2024 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.111438/2017 (LB-RES). THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB WA No. 100298 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) For the reasons stated in the application - I.A. No.1/2024, the same is allowed. The delay of 150 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP NO.111438/2017 (LB-RES) captioned 'Abdul Gafar and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others'. The said writ petition was filed by the respondents - Abdul Gafar and others inter alia impugning the order dated 22.08.2015 passed by the President, Zilla Panchayat, Belagavi as well as the order dated 01.09.2014 passed by the Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat, Bailhongal, Belagavi, challenging certain entries made in the land records. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB WA No. 100298 of 2024 2. It is the case of the writ petitioners that certain open space measuring 65 x 130 sq.ft. consisting of a house and backyard was sold to Shri Tukaram, who has since expired. Shri Tukaram had filed a suit for specific performance being O.S. No. 2/1991 which was decreed. The area was demarcated and a sale deed was executed in favour of Shri Tukaram. Pursuant thereto, the name of Shri Tukaram was entered into the property register of Kittur Gram Panchayat as property No. 1206. It is stated that since there were two properties which were assigned the same number, the property conveyed in terms of the sale deed in favour of Shri Tukaram was assigned No. 1206-B by a separate resolution. 3. The case of the writ petitioners is that part of the property was retained in their family and was not the subject matter of sale of conveyance. The remaining property was allotted No. 1206-A by Kittur Gram Panchayat. The said resolution assigning a separate property number to the property claimed by the writ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB WA No. 100298 of 2024 petitioners, was challenged by Shri Tukaram. However, this challenge was dismissed by an order dated 01.09.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent had appealed the said order before the Executive Officer. The respondent had prevailed and the order issued earlier was cancelled. 4. The controversy, essentially, relates to whether any property had remained with the writ petitioners (or their family) after the suit for specific performance [O.S. No.2/1991] had been decreed in favour of Shri Tukaram. Admittedly, the sale deed executed in favour of Shri Tukaram does not cover the entire properties held by the writ petitioners or their family. However, case of the appellants (legal heirs of Shri Tukaram who are claiming through and under him) is that a mistake has crept in the sale deed, which was executed in the proceedings initiated for enforcement of the decree of specific performance passed in O.S. No. 2/1991. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB WA No. 100298 of 2024 5. The appellants claim that although the sale of entire property, described in G.P. No. 1206, was specifically decreed in favour of Shri Tukaram, the sale deed did not cover the entire property on account of an error that had crept in at the time of execution of the sale deed. 6. The appellants state that they have already initiated separate proceedings for redressal of their grievance in O.S. No. 183/2025, which is pending before the Civil Judge, Kittur. 7. The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present appeal be disposed of with a direction that the impugned order and the order passed in the present proceedings would not come in the way of the appellants if in the event of them prevailing in the said suit [O.S.No.183/2025]. In other words, if the appellants prevail in securing an order for rectification of the sale deed to include the subject property, the land records will be modified to reflect the same. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB WA No. 100298 of 2024 8. In view of the above, no further orders are required to be passed in the present appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. Pending applications are also disposed of. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE BVV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14