- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4306 WP No. 67434 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. 67434 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. MALLESHAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HOLIKATTI, AGE: 55 YEARS, 2. SHIDDALINGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HOLIKATTI, AGE: 53 YEARS, 3. REVANEPPA S/O. BASAPPA HOLIKATTI, AGE: 51 YEARS, 4. KOTTARESHAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HOLIKATTI, AGE: 48 YEARS, 5. SHANMUKHAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HOLIKATTI, AGE: 46 YEARS, 6. KENCHAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HOLIKATTI, ALL PETITIONERS ARE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTIHAL, TQ:RANNEBENNURE, DIST: HAVERI. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. N. P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4306 WP No. 67434 of 2011 AND: 1. KOTTRESHAPPA S/O. PARVATAPA BUKKASHATTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTIHAL, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI, HAVERI. 3. THE ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER RANEBENNUR, RANEBENNUR,DIST: HAVERI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. N.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & R3 ARE SERVED) ------ THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER OF 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 22/09/2011 PASSED IN R.T.S./RA/CR-73/-08-09 AT ANNEXURE-G & ORDER OF 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 07.07.2008 PASSED IN R.T.S./A.P/ 120/2006-07, ANNEXURE-F. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 22.09.2011 passed by respondent No.2 in R.T.S/RA/CR-73/08-09 produced as - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4306 WP No. 67434 of 2011 per Annexure-G and the order dated 07.07.2008 passed by respondent No.3 in R.T.S/A.P/120/2006-07 produced as per Annexure-F. 2. Heard Sri. N.P.Vivekmehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. N.V.Yaji, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are served but have remained unrepresented. Perused the materials on record. 3. It is the contention of the petitioners that, initially one Kenchappagouda was the owner of 1.05 acres of land in Sy.No.274 of Kotihal village. Said Kenchappagouda had two sons namely, Ankalappagouda and Adiveppagouda. There was a partition between the brothers as found in Annexure-A, in the year 1957. Later, the brothers have relinquished their right in favour of their sister-Nagavva during 1977. Accordingly, the name of Nagavva was mutated in the revenue records. After her death, the name of her husband came to be entered in the revenue records. The petitioners claim that they are the sons of Nagavva. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4306 WP No. 67434 of 2011 Even though M.E.No.1588 was effected on 21.10.1977, it was only during 2006-07 i.e. after lapse of 30 years, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, contending that at some remote point of time, the name of his mother Shankaravva was found in the revenue records, and since the same was deleted long back, it has to be restored. The appeal was entertained by the Assistant Commissioner by passing the impugned order produced as per Annexure-F and the same was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner by passing the order produced as per Annexure-G. The same are called in question before this Court. 4. It is the contention of respondent No.1, that he is the son of Shankaravva whose name had admittedly appeared in the revenue records. But, he was not in a position to say as to how Shankaravva derived title over any portion of the disputed land. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that respondent No.1 is no- where related to the petitioners. However, the fact - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4306 WP No. 67434 of 2011 remains that at one point of time the name of Shankaravva was found in the Record of Rights. The same was deleted by effecting M.E.No.1588 way back in the year 1977. Since then neither the name of Shankaravva nor the name of respondent No.1 appeared in the revenue records. For these long years, neither Shankaravva nor respondent No.1 have challenged the said mutation entry. It is stated that till this date in the revenue records, the names of the petitioners are reflected. 5. In the impugned order Annexure-G passed by the Deputy Commissioner, even though he confirms the order of the Assistant Commissioner setting aside M.E.No.1588, he specifies that the declaration of title in respect of the landed property, is to be sought before the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction. If at all, respondent No.1 is aggrieved by deletion of the name of Shankaravva who claims to be his mother, he was at liberty to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration of his title, in accordance with law. Instead, he preferred an appeal before the - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4306 WP No. 67434 of 2011 Assistant Commissioner belatedly, which was entertained by him. Even though the contention of respondent No.1 cannot be denied by stating that he has no right whatsoever over the property, mere entry in the revenue records will not create any right. When the right of respondent No.1 is seriously disputed by the petitioners, when M.E.No.1588 was effected on 21.10.1977 and was in force for all these years i.e. for more than 48 years, it is not fair at this stage to delete the said entry by directing to enter the name of Shankaravva who is no more. When respondent No.1 claims his right under Shankaravva, it is for him to establish his right over the property in accordance with law before the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders produced as per Annexures F and G are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The Writ Petition is allowed. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4306 WP No. 67434 of 2011 (ii) The impugned order dated 07.07.2008 passed by respondent No.3 in R.T.S/A.P/120/2006-07 as per Annexure-F and order dated 22.09.2011 passed by respondent No.2 in No.R.T.S/RA/CR- 73/08-09 as per Annexure-G, are hereby quashed. Consequently M.E.No.1588 is restored. Sd/- (M.G.UMA) JUDGE MKM List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14