- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1515 WP No. 105374 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.105374 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAMAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA CHANDARGI, AGED 64 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SUNDHOLI VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590005. 2. SRI. RUDRAPPA S/O. DUNDAPPA CHANDARGI, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SUNDHOLI VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590005. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. ASHOK I. BADIGER, AND SRI. GIRISH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE REGIONAL JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BELAGAVI DIVISION, BELAGAVI-590001. 3. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND EX-OFFICIO DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BELAGAVI-590001. ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1515 WP No. 105374 of 2024 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, LAND RECORDS, GOKAK-590003. 5. SRI. GURURAJ S/O. BASALINGAPPA PATIL, AGED 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SUNDHOLI VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590005. 6. SRI. MOHAN S/O. BASALINGAPPA PATIL, AGED 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SUNDHOLI VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590005. 7. SRI. KHANGOUDA S/O. BASALINGAPPA PATIL, AGED 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SUNDHOLI VILLAGE, MUDALAGI TALUK, BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590005. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R1-R4; SRI. MANJUNATH S. TORAGAL, ADVOCATE FOR R5-R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN ORDER OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT-AUTHORITY DATED 18.07.2024 AT VIDE ANNEXURE-E BEARING NO. .36/2024 AS PER SY NO.254/1 AND 254/2 AT ANNEXURE-E CONSEQUENTLY, TO RESTORE THE ORDER DATED 30/9/2022, BEARING NO. 221/20-21 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-D; DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS-AUTHORITY, MORE PARTICULARLY RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 TO CONTINUE THE EXISTING REVENUE ENTRIES AND PHODI DOCUMENTS AND ETC. THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1515 WP No. 105374 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) 1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. An order of certiorari, quashing the impugned order of the 2nd respondent-authority dated 18.07.2024 at vide Annexure-E bearing no. -36/2024 as per Sy No.254/1 and 254/2 at Annexure-E consequently, to restore the order dated 30/9/2022, bearing no. 221/20-21 of the 3rd respondent at Annexure-D; b. Direct the respondents-authority, more particularly respondent nos.2 to 4 to continue the existing revenue entries and phodi documents. c. Pass such other and further order/orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice. 2. The grievance of the petitioners is that revenue entries in the mutation register in respect of Sy.No.254/1 and Sy.No.254/2 having been made on 18.07.1957 indicating Sy.No.254/1 being 11 acre 19 guntas and Sy.No.254/2 being 4 acre 21 guntas, has been directed to be changed by respondent No.2 vide impugned order dated 18.07.2024 to indicate that the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1515 WP No. 105374 of 2024 land bearing Sy.No.254/1 measures 12 acres 27 guntas and Sy.No.254/2 measures 3 acres 10 guntas. 3. The submission of Sri.Ashok Biradar, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the mutation entries having been on record from 18.01.1957 could not have been so directed to be changed on 18.07.2024 after more than 60 years, which causes harm and injury to the petitioners. Since on the basis of such change, the petitioners apprehend that respondents No.5 to 7 will interfere with the possession of the petitioners and seek to takeover possession from the petitioners. His submission therefore is that the mutation entries, which were made in the year 1957 could not have been directed to be disturbed by respondent No.2 in a revision petition filed against the order of respondent No.4 where respondent No.4 had rejected the claim of respondents No.5 to 7. 4. The submission of Sri.Manjunath S.Torogal, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 to 7 is that though the mutation entries were made in the year - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1515 WP No. 105374 of 2024 1957, the other documents more particularly record of tenancy and crops (RTC) indicates Sy.No.254/1 to measure 12 acres 27 and Sy.No.254/2 to measure 3 acres 10 guntas, which is the correct measurement. The entries in the RTC’s having been in existence from even prior to mutation entries. The taxes have been paid in relation thereto. Those entries are the final entries, which have been taken into consideration by respondent No.3 and it is the correction of the extent, which has been directed to made in terms of the RTC’s and as such, submit that no fault could be found with the said order. On that basis, he submits that the petition is required to be dismissed. 5. Both the counsels are in agreement as regards land in Sy.No.254 measuring 15 acres 37 guntas with addition of 3 guntas of phot kharab land totally measuring 16 acres. The only dispute is as regards the mutation entries and survey entries made in relation to the sub numbers of Sy.No.254/1 and Sy.No.254/2. The petitioner contending that Sy.No.254/1 measures 11 acres 19 guntas and Sy.No.254/2 measures 4 acres 21 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1515 WP No. 105374 of 2024 guntas while respondents No.5 to 7 contending that Sy.No.254/1 measures 12 acres 27 guntas and Sy.No.254/2 measures 3 acres 10 guntas. 6. The petitioners further contend that the petitioners having possession of the entire land irrespective of the measurement where the respondents contend that they are in possession of 12 acres 27 guntas in Sy.No.254/1. By doing so, it is contended that the petitioners are only in possession of 3 acres 10 guntas. Insofar as the possession is concerned, respondent No.2 has not determined the possession but has only directed the correction of the entries. 7. Insofar as the entries being corrected being in accordance with the other documents namely the RTC’s, Akarband, the survey records and mutation entry being corrected will not in any manner cause any adverse impact on the petitioners nor confer any right on respondents No.5 to 7. 8. The correction of the extent is only for the purpose of revenue entries, which would not confer any title on - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1515 WP No. 105374 of 2024 either the petitioner or respondents No.5 to 7. If at all respondents were to contend that the respondents are the owners in possession of any portion of the said land, respondents would be required to file necessary suit seeking for such reliefs. They cannot make use of the entries made in the revenue records or the correction now made to contend that they are in possession and or they are the owners of the land. In that view of the matter, I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by respondent No.2. 9. In view of the above observations, the petition stand dismissed. 10. It is made clear that the aspect of title and possession will have to be considered in an appropriately instituted suit and has not been adverted to by this Court in the present order. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE AM CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17