- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1595 WP No. 200611 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 200611 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: G. RAVIKUMAR S/O TAGUNTA REDDY @ REDDEPPA, AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: H.NO.10-7-28, MAKTALAPET, RAICHUR – 584 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI CHAITANYAKUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER KALABURAGI, DIST: KALABURAGI – 585 102. 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAICHUR, DIST: RAICHUR – 584 101. 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DC OFFICE PREMISES, RAICHUR – 584 101. Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1595 WP No. 200611 of 2025 5. TAHSILDAR, RAICHUR, DIST : RAICHUR – 584 101. 6. KARNATAKA STATE WAKF BOARD #6, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, VASANT NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 051. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, A.G.A. FOR R1 TO R5; SRI P.S.MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.07.2023 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 IN ¸ÀA.PÀA/Dgï.n/«ªÁzÀ/91/2021-22 AS AT ANNEXURE-C IN RESPECT OF SY NO.201/2 OF RAMPUR VILLAGE OF TALUKA AND DIST RAICHUR, AND MUTATE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE REVENUE RECORDS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5 and the learned counsel for respondent No.6 – Wakf Board. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1595 WP No. 200611 of 2025 2. This petition is filed assailing the order passed by the Tahsildar in terms of the said order dated 21.07.2023. The Tahsildar has cancelled the registered sale deed dated 27.08.2020, registered in the name of the petitioner on the premise that the property belongs to respondent No.6 – Wakf Board. 3. It is noticed that the sale deed is duly registered. Pursuant to the sale deed, Form – J was issued. 4. Respondent No.6 – Wakf Board did not file any objection to the certification of the said mutation. However, the Tahsildar in his impugned order has stated that the property belongs to Wakf Board and thereafter, he has proceeded to pass the impugned order canceling the registered sale deed itself. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that though the order is technically appealable under Section 136(2) of the Land Revenue Act, the cancellation of registered sale deed by the Tahsildar is without jurisdiction and as such the writ petition is filed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1595 WP No. 200611 of 2025 6. The learned counsel for respondent No.6 on the other hand would contend that the property does belong to the Wakf Board as such the sale deed could not have been executed. 7. It is noticed that respondent No.6 did not object to the mutation before the Tahsildar. Whether the property belongs to the Wakf Board or the property belong to the petitioner’s vendor has to be adjudicated in a proper forum. The Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to decide on the validity of the registered sale deed and he could not have cancel the registered sale deed. 8. Under these circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order at Annexure – C is quashed. 6th respondent is aggrieved by the registered sale deed in respect of the petition property in the name of the petitioner, 6th respondent is at liberty to raise the dispute before appropriate forum. 9. Since it is stated that the name of Wakf Board was not there as on the date of registration of the sale deed, the Tahsildar shall take necessary steps to delete the name of Wakf - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1595 WP No. 200611 of 2025 Board from the property records and there shall be an entry in the name of the petitioner in the property records. 10. However this order should not be construed as an order having decided the claim of the petitioner or the respondent no.6, in respect of title to the property in dispute. Question relating to the title has to be adjudicated in the appropriate forum. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE THM,BL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 73