- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4710 WP No. 63083 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 63083 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI. VITTAL S/O. GOVIND GURAV, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: MUGALKHOD, TQ: RAIBAG, BELGAUM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. R. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKODI. 3. THE TAHSILDAR RAIBAG. 4. SMT. KAMALAWWA W/O. NAGAPPA GURAV AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 5. MARUTI S/O. NAGAPPA GURAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 6. IRAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA GURAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4710 WP No. 63083 of 2011 7. MALLAPPA S/O. NAGAPPA GURAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 8. SMT. SHAKUNTALA D/O. NAGAPPA GURAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, 9. GAJANAN S/O. NAGAPPA GURAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, 10. ASHOK S/O. NAGAPPA GURAV, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE R/O. MUGALKOD VILLAGE, TQ: RAIBAG, DIST: BELGAUM. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANANDA R. & SRI. RAHUL R., ADV.S FOR R9 & R10 SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, LEARNED ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3: R9 IS GAP HOLDER OF R4 TO 8) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM RESPONDENT NO.1, IN RB.RTA.43/09- 10, DATED 28.04.2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKODI, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND SUCH OTHER RELIEFS. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4710 WP No. 63083 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi-respondent No.1, in RB.RTA.43/09-10, dated 28.04.2011, produced as per Annexure-C. 2. Heard Sri A.R.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State and Sri Mahananda R. learned counsel for respondent Nos.9 and 10. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one Smt.Bagawwa was the grandmother of the petitioner. She executed an unregistered Will dated 05.10.1996, bequeathing her right over the land bearing Sy.Nos.413, and 414 of Mugalkhod village, in favour of the petitioner. The said lands were inherited by her from her husband. Since she had no issues, she bequeathed the properties in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4710 WP No. 63083 of 2011 favour of the petitioner. The said Bagawwa died in 1998. The name of petitioner got entered in the revenue records on the basis of the Will, and the same was challenged by the respondents by preferring an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal preferred by the respondents and cancelled the entry effected in the revenue records that showed the name of petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has challenged the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by passing the impugned order, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. In the impugned order at Annexure-C, the Deputy Commissioner has observed as under: “I have heard the matter and perused the records of the case. As per section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Will is not enumerated as one of modes of acquisition of right. This being so, the mutation entry in question certified on the basis of Will is illegal and against the provisions of section 128 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4710 WP No. 63083 of 2011 of the KLR Act 1964. This principal of law is also laid down in a decision reported in 2002(6) Kar.L.J.391(FB) wherein it is held that “Will is not enumerated as one of modes of acquisition of right, and Revenue Officer is not competent to decide right under Will. When that is so, where is the question of making entry in the record on the basis of Will. Moreover the Will is disputed by the respondents who are entitled to inherit the 1/8th share as per Civil Court Decree in O.S.No.117/1996, dated 5th July 2003 wherein the share of deceased Bhagawwa were allotted to them. In view of the above Civil Court Decree and the provisions of section 128 and 129 of the KLR Act and the relied decision I have come to the conclusion that the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi has rightly determined the matter in allowing the appeal and setting aside the mutation entry in question and therefore in this view of the matter I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi”. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, he is not aware about the status of the Suit in O.S.No.117/1996 referred to by the Deputy Commissioner in the impugned order. However filing of the suit for partition and separate position as stated in the impugned order is not disputed. Even otherwise, the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have assigned valid reasons for cancelling the revenue entry effected on the basis of the unregistered will dated 05.10.1996, which - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4710 WP No. 63083 of 2011 is seriously disputed by the respondents. I do not find any merits in the contention taken by the petitioner, that in spite of such objections, the name of the petitioner is to be mutated in the revenue records, based on the disputed Will. 6. The impugned order also refers to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in C.N.Nagendra Singh Vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and others1. The Full Bench of this Court held as under: “The cardinal principle of law is that if the language is simple and unambiguous, it is to be read with the clear intention of the legislation. Otherwise also, any addition/subtraction of a word is not permissible. Admittedly, the word 'Will' has deliberately not been used by the legislation and we cannot give a different meaning by adding the word 'Will'. In view of the above discussion, mutation entry cannot be effected on the basis of the Will as suggested and argued. 8. Rule 43 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules deals with settlement of disputes. It states every case 1 (2002) 6 KANT LJ 391 (W.P.No.19065/2001) - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4710 WP No. 63083 of 2011 entered in the register of disputed cases shall be enquired into and decided by the Sheristedar or by any officer of the Revenue Department equal or superior in rank to him on an appointed day of which due notice shall be given to the parties concerned. It categorically states the proceedings of the enquiry shall be oral and held in the public and there shall be no recording of statements and depositions. The only record shall be the decision of the officer holding the enquiry, in the register itself, which shall contain a brief summary of the facts elicited during the enquiry and the grounds for the decision. Of course an appeal is provided against such decision to the Assistant Commissioner in charge of the Sub-Division whose decision shall be final. Therefore, it becomes clear every Revenue Officer who is authorised to hold an enquiry in respect of disputed cases is a Revenue Court. The very fact he is prohibited from recording the statements and depositions of the parties makes it clear that no substantial rights of the parties in respect of the disputed property can be gone into by such Revenue Court. If title or right set up by one party to an immovable property is disputed by the other party such title to the property cannot be enquired into by the Revenue Courts much less any decision be rendered for any purpose whatsoever. In the first place the Revenue Court constituted under the Act can only go into questions of assessment, recovery of land revenue and land revenue administration and it has no jurisdiction to go into the question of title in respect of an immovable property which exclusively vests in the Civil Court. 9. Considering Rule 43, when a person claims title to a property under a Will for the purpose of getting a mutation entry in the revenue records before any such entry is made the Revenue Court should prima facie be - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4710 WP No. 63083 of 2011 satisfied that the said document is genuine and valid even in the absence of any dispute as the said Will comes in the way of natural succession. By virtue of Section 128 when the owner of the land dies, the title to the said property passed on to the legal heir by succession or survivorship or inheritance and the property vests with such a legal heir without there being any document and purely based on the relationship of the deceased with the legal heir. A Will can come into operation only after the death of the executant. If a Will is set up to deprive, a legal heir who had acquired title to the property either by succession, survivorship or inheritance, the person claiming under the Will has to show better title. If the Will is disputed strict proof of Will as required under Sections 63 and 64 of the Succession Act is to be provided. When the Revenue Court is prevented from recording the statements of the parties and the depositions, the question of establishing the genuineness of the Will for any purpose whatsoever before the Revenue Court in an enquiry would not arise. Under these circumstances, the Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to go into the genuineness or validity of the Will or to the question of title in respect of the land in dispute. The decision of the Revenue Court has to be necessarily based on the undisputed facts. The Revenue Court cannot go into the disputed questions of relationship, status of the parties' title to the property or genuineness or otherwise of a document or challenge to the documents on the ground of fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or mistake. As such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of Rule 43 in the case of a Will.” (Emphasis supplied) - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4710 WP No. 63083 of 2011 7. Thus the Court has made it very clear that, Will is not a mode of acquisition of right, and the Revenue Officer is not competent to decide the rights of the parties based on the Will and that it is only the Civil Court that can decide the genuineness of the Will. The procedure for proving the Will is also provided under law. The petitioner cannot be permitted to bypass all those requirements of law. Hence, the petitioner cannot seek mutation of his name in the revenue records. Since I do not find any merits in the writ petition, petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE VB para No.1-4 EM para No.5 to till end CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3