- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4284 WP No. 64531 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO.64531 OF 2011 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. JAGANNATH VISHNU PATIL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O. SRI. VISHNU PATIL, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/AT. KARNAL, MEERAJ TALUK, SANGLI DISTRICT. MAHARASHTRA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI N. P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM DISTRICT, BELGAUM 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELGUAM, SUB-DIVISION, BELGAUM. 3. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, HIREBAGEWADI, BELGAUM TALUK & DISTRICT. 4. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, BALEKUNDRI K.H., BELGAUM TALUK & DISTRICT. Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4284 WP No. 64531 of 2011 5. SMT. SUMITRA SIDDRAMA KARIMUDUKANNAVAR W/O. SIDDRAMA KARIMUDUKANNAVAR, R/AT SAMBRA, BELGAUM TALUK AND DISTRICT. 6. SMT. SABAKKA RAMACHANDRA PATIL @ PITAGI, AGE: MAJOR, W/O. RAMACHANDRA PATIL @ PITAGI, R/AT BALEKUNDRI. K.H., BELGAUM TALUK AND DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5; SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; R6 – NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION, IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT, QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2004 IN CASE NO.RTS.AP.30/2002 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT- ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM SUB-DIVISION, BELGAUM, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ALSO THAT OF THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2011 IN CASE NO.RB.RTA.46/2008-09 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM VIDE ANNEXURE- H TO THE WRIT PETITION AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 TO CONTINUE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF THE LAND BEARING SY.NO.134, MEASURING 15 ACRES 03 GUNTAS, SITUATED AT BALEKUNDRI KH VILLAGE, BELGAUM TALUK AND DISTRICT. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4284 WP No. 64531 of 2011 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other Writ or order or direction, in the nature of a Writ, quashing the order dated 14.12.2004 in Case No.RTS.AP.30/2002 passed by the 2nd respondent – Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum Sub-Division, Belgaum, vide Annexure-F and also that of the order dated 28.04.2011 in case No.RB.RTA.46/2008-09 passed by the 1st respondent – Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum vide Annexure-H to the Writ Petition. b. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 to continue the name of the petitioner in the Revenue Entries in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.134, measuring 15 acres 03 guntas, situated at Balekundri KH Village, Belgaum Taluk and District. c. Pass such other orders, as the petitioner is entitled to in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the costs of the proceedings in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Heard Sri N.P.Vivekmehta learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Aravind D.Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.5 and Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that one Venkatarao Patil was the owner of the land - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4284 WP No. 64531 of 2011 bearing Sy.No.134 situated at Balekundri KH village. He had two sons by name Ramachandra and Kedari. Smt.Sonabai is the wife of Kedari. They were not having any issues. In the family partition, Kedari got half share in Sy.No.134 amongst other properties. After the death of Kedari, Sonabai filed a suit, and as per the decree her name came to be entered in respect of 7 acres 21 and ½ guntas at the northern portion of land in Sy.No.134 being her half share, as per ME.No.3225. 4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is brother’s son of Sonabai. Since Sonabai had no issues she bequeathed her property in favour of the petitioner by executing a registered Will dated 30.09.1998. Subsequently during 2000 she died. Accordingly, the name of petitioner came to be entered in the revenue records. This was never challenged by the other sharers i.e., Ramachandra or his two wives or children. Respondent No.5 who is no way concerned to the family of Sonabai has started asserting that, he purchased - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4284 WP No. 64531 of 2011 property from Sonabai and from the heirs of Ramachandra on 17.10.2006. When Sonabai had died in the year 2000, the contention of respondent no.5 that he purchased the property from Sonabai and others during the year 2000 cannot be accepted. Therefore it is contended that, it was a fabricated and forged document. In that regard, a criminal complaint came to be filed and it is stated that the charge sheet is filed against respondent No.5. Since respondent No.5 has challenged mutation of the name of the petitioner in the Record of Rights based on the Will, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the impugned order as per Annexure-F. When the same was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner by the petitioner, he passed the impugned order as per Annexure-H, without application of mind. Therefore, it is the contention of the petitioner that the petition is to be allowed by restoring ME.No.3225 in the name of the petitioner in the Record of Rights. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4284 WP No. 64531 of 2011 5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5 submitted that, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner make it very clear that they followed the decision of this Court passed in W.P.No.19065/2001, wherein the Full Bench of this Court categorically held that the mutation entry cannot be effected on the basis of the Will, even in the absence of any dispute. Therefore the finding of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner directing the parties to approach the Civil Court to declare their title over the property cannot be found fault with. Hence, they pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. On perusal of the materials on record, the facts as narrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding tracing of title of Sonabai, is not in dispute. The contention of the petitioner that he being the brother’s son of Sonabai got the property under the registered Will executed by her. On the basis of same, his name came to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4284 WP No. 64531 of 2011 be mutated in the revenue records. Even though respondent No.5 is a stranger to the family and claims right under the registered sale deed, said to have been executed by Sonabai and others in the year 2006, the same is under serious dispute. Even if, the Court were to ignore the claim of respondent No.5 for a moment, the right of the petitioner to seek mutation of his name in the revenue records based on the registered Will said to have been executed by Sonabai is unsustainable. The impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner refers to the decision of this Court in C.N.Nagendra Singh Vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and others1. The Full Bench of this Court while deciding the writ petition vide order dated 28.05.2002 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'. 1 2002 (6) KANT LJ 391 (W.P.No.19065/2001) - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4284 WP No. 64531 of 2011 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 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 - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4284 WP No. 64531 of 2011 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 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 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4284 WP No. 64531 of 2011 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) 7. When the revenue officials have no authority to hold enquiry to find out the genuineness or otherwise of the Will and when there is a separate procedure to be followed to prove the genuineness of the Will by examining at-least one of the attesting witnesses before the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Will in question was not disputed by other heirs of Venkatarao Patil and therefore the petitioner need not have to approach the Civil Court to prove the Will cannot be accepted. 8. The petitioner was required to seek declaration of his titled to the property in question, based on the Will, by proving the same in accordance with law. The Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order as per Annexure-H, wherein he has discussed at length about the contention taken by both the parties, and forming an - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4284 WP No. 64531 of 2011 opinion that respondent No.5 herein had no locus-standi to challenge M.E.No.3418 of Balekundri KH village. But however, placing reliance on the decision referred to above, he formed an opinion that the revenue authorities have committed error since dispute is of civil nature and the mutation entry could not have been effected. 9. Therefore both the parties were directed to approach the competent civil court to get their grievances resolved. I do not find any illegality or perversity in the orders impugned. Hence, petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE EM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11