Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 84506 (KAR)

SRI LAXMAN S/O BEERAPPA DABAJ v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/101866/2025 · 2025-10-31

Anant Ramanath Hegde

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14835 WP No. 101866 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 101866 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SHRI LAXMAN S/O BEERAPPA DABAJ, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, OCC. AGRI., R/O. PAMALADINNI VILLAGE-591 307, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI. … PETITIONER (BY SRI. LAXMAN T. MANTAGANI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM DISTRICT, BELGAUM-591 102. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION, BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELGAUM-591 102. Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14835 WP No. 101866 of 2025 4. THE TAHSILDAR, GOKAK TALUK, GOKAK, DIST. BELGAUM-591 307. 5. SHRI BHUPAL S/O DUNDAPPA HULLOLI, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. GHATAPRABHA, MALLAPUR (P.G.), TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 310. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MALA B. BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/RESPONDENT-2 IN BEARING NO.RB/RTA/278/2024-25, DATED 04-03-2025, VIDE ANNEXURE-G, AS THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, AND CONTRARY TO LAW. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14835 WP No. 101866 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner assailing the order dated 04.03.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, who has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. 2. In terms of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, the appeal filed by the present petitioner before the Assistant Commissioner was allowed, and the mutation entry was certified based on the registered Sale Deed dated 12.07.1972. Hence, the present contesting private respondents filed a Revision before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the Revision and restored the mutation entry based on the aforementioned Sale Deed. 3. Learned counsel the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is the Class-II heir of Bhagavva W/o Siddappa Dabaji. Bhagavva died issueless, and the petitioner is the only Class-II heir entitled to succeed to her property. Accordingly, he has succeeded to the property and is in possession of the property thereof. It is further submitted that Bhagavva died in 1963, and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14835 WP No. 101866 of 2025 the Sale Deed dated 12.07.1972, standing in the name of respondent No.5, is concocted and created on account of impersonation. Learned counsel contends that Bhagavva could not have executed a Sale Deed in 1972, when she had already died in 1963. In support of his contention, he relies upon on the death certificate of Bhagavva. Thus, he would urge that the Deputy Commissioner erred in allowing the Revision Petition. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the certificate produced by the petitioner at Annexure-C refers to Registration No.22 and it is pertaining to Bhagavva daughter of Siddappa Dabaji, who died on 18.09.1963. It is contended that the petitioner’s claim relates to a different from person the one whose name appears in the death certificate at Annexure-C. 5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents also places reliance on the copy of the birth certificate registered at Sy.No.22, wherein the name of Bhagavva, daughter of Siddappa Dabaji, is shown as a person who died at the age of three months. It is further submitted that from 1972 to till 2024 i.e., till the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal, the name of respondent No.5 continued in - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14835 WP No. 101866 of 2025 the property records without any obstruction or objection from anyone. Thus, it is urged that the Deputy Commissioner was justified in passing the impugned order. 6. This Court has considered the contention raised at the Bar and perused the records. 7. Admittedly, there is a Sale Deed dated 24.07.1972 in the name of respondent No.5, said to have been executed by Bhagavva W/o Siddappa Dabaji. Whether the said person had died in 1963, as contented by the petitioner, or whether she was a different person who died at the age of three months, or whether the Bhagavva who executed the Sale Deed was altogether a different person, are questions of fact that are to be adjudicated by the Trial Court after recording evidence. 8. The law relating to mutation entries based on registered Sale Deed is well settled. The Revenue Authorities do not have the jurisdiction to examine the validity of the registered documents. It is noticed that the Sale Deed of 1972 has been given effect to by recording the name of respondent No.5 in the property records. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:14835 WP No. 101866 of 2025 9. Under these circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in reversing the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and in restoring the name of respondent No.5 in the property records. 10. However, it is required to be observed here that, since the Revenue Authorities do not have the jurisdiction to examine the validity of Sale Deed, the observations made by the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner or by this Court while restoring the name of respondent No.5 in the property records, shall not be construed as having expressed anything on the merits of the claim of the parties or possession of the parties over the suit property. 11. The person who is in possession of the property has to be decided by the Trial Court on considering the materials to be placed before it. 12. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE PMP/CT:BCK/LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 26