- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5210 WP No. 107325 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 107325 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. ANAND S/O. KEDARI KOCHARI AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MARAGAI GALLI, KAKATI-591113 TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI. 2. PUNDALIK S/O. KEDARI KOCHARI, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. MARAGAI GALLI, KAKATI-591113 TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI D.C OFFICE COMPOUND, BELAGAVI – 590 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI SUB – DIVISION, 4360/A, CHAVAT GALLI, Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5210 WP No. 107325 of 2024 KHADE BAZAR, RAVIWAR PETH, BELAGAVI – 590 001. 4. THE TAHASHILDAR BELAGAVI BELAGAVI – 591 001, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KAKATI KAKATI – 591 113. DIST. BELAGAVI. 6. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, KAKATI, KAKATI – 591 113. DIST. BELAGAVI. 7. PARASRAM S/O. MASHU GAVI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YAMANAPUR GALLI, KAKATI – 591 113 TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI. 8. JYOTIBA S/O. MASHU GAVI, AGE: 57 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YAMANAPUR GALLI, KAKATI – 591 113. TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI. 9. SIDRAI S/O. MASHU GAVI AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YAMANAPUR GALLI, KAKATI – 591 113 TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI. 10. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. MARUTI PATIL, AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: UCHGAON – 591 128 TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5210 WP No. 107325 of 2024 11. SMT. SUDHA W/O. GOPAL BIRJE, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: BASAWAN GALLI, SHAHAPUR BELAGAVI – 590 003. 12. SMT. RENUKA W/O. KUMAR KANABARKAR, AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: UCHGAON – 591 128 TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI. 13. SMT. BHAGUBAI W/O. MASHU GAVI AGE: 77 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: YAMANAPUR GALLI, KAKATI – 591 113 TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R6) ----- THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2024 PASSED IN RB/RTA/184/2023-24 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY REVERSING THE ORDER DATED 27.10.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.412/2022 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN CONFIRMING THE MUTATION ENTRY BEARING MR NO.T102/2021-2022 DATED 17.03.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN RESPECT OF PETITION LAND. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5210 WP No. 107325 of 2024 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 30.05.2024, passed by respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, produced as per Annexure-A. 2. Heard Sri. Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 6. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that, their father is said to have executed the sale deed in favor of Mashnu Mayanna Gavi, who is the predecessor in title, of respondents No.7 to 13. Since the petitioners were claiming right under their father, objected for mutating the name of the purchaser under the sale deed. The same was kept pending for some time. Subsequently, based on the registered sale deed, the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5210 WP No. 107325 of 2024 name of the purchaser was mutated in the revenue records. Thereafter, the petitioners, as plaintiffs, filed a suit in O.S.No.105/1984, seeking declaration that the sale deed in question was not binding on them. The said suit came to be dismissed. Challenging the same, R.A.No.215/1987 was filed. The said appeal was allowed, and the suit of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.105/1984 was decreed. 4. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have preferred a second appeal in RSA No.503/1991. The RSA was disposed of vide judgment dated 03.06.1998, directing the petitioners to file a suit for partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share in the suit property. After a lapse of around 17 years, the petitioners appears to have filed the suit in O.S.No.67/2015, for partition and separate possession. The said suit came to be dismissed on 01.02.2022. Being aggrieved by the same, the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5210 WP No. 107325 of 2024 petitioners have preferred RFA No.100145/2022, which is pending consideration before this Court. 5. In the meantime, respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner, passed the impugned order noting that the petitioners have not succeeded in their attempt before the Civil Court and that, even their second suit for partition and separate possession, i.e., O.S.No.67/2015, had been dismissed and the RFA is still pending consideration. Therefore, he ordered for removal of the names of the petitioners from the revenue records by setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner, dated 27.10.2023. However, the Deputy Commissioner made it very clear that, the entries in the revenue records shall be subject to the result of RFA No.100145/2022, pending before this Court. 6. The dates and events referred to above since 18.07.1964, disclose that, the petitioners were not diligent in prosecuting their claim, however, now the - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:5210 WP No. 107325 of 2024 RFA is pending consideration before this Court. Under such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner directing restoration of the order dated 17.03.2022 and setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27.10.2023, which is, of course, subject to the result of the pending first appeal in RFA No.100145/2022 before this Court. 7. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE gab CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17