- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1780 WP No. 200623 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 200623 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. Digitally signed by BASALINGAPPA SHIVARAJ DHUTTARGAON Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1780 WP No. 200623 of 2025 4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, D.C. OFFICE PREMISES, RAICHUR - 584 101. 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.201/1 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. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B” GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1780 WP No. 200623 of 2025 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. 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 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1780 WP No. 200623 of 2025 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. 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 belongs to the petitioner has to be adjudicated in a proper forum. The Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to decide on the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1780 WP No. 200623 of 2025 validity of the registered sale deed and he could not have cancelled the registered sale deed. 8. Under these circumstances, the impugned order at Annexure–C is quashed. If respondent No.6 is aggrieved by the registered sale deed in respect of the petition property in the name of the petitioner, respondent No.6 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 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 respondent No.6, in respect of title to the property in - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1780 WP No. 200623 of 2025 dispute. Question relating to the title has to be adjudicated in the appropriate forum. Writ petition allowed as indicated above. Sd/- (ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 79