- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2391 WP No. 85755 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 85755 OF 2013 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1(A). NALLAPURA ERAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs., SRI. SIDDAPPA S/O. LATE DURGAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, 1(B). SRI. MALLIKARJUNA S/O. LATE DURGAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, 1(C). SMT. RAMALAKSHMI W/O. LATE RAMAPPA DAUGHTER IN LAW OF LATE DURGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, 2. SMT. GOTURU HANUMANTHAMMA W/O. LATE LINGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, ALL ARE R/O. HIRE HADLIGI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: BELLARY. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. GAYATRI S. R., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.20 11:36:28 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2391 WP No. 85755 of 2013 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIKASA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TQ AND DIST: BELLARY. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TQ AND DIST: BELLARY. 4. THE TAHASHILDAR TAHASHILDAR OFFICE, TQ AND DIST: BELLARY. 5. SRI. LAKSHMANA S/O. LATE HARIJANA ADEPPA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/O. HIRE HADLIGI VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST: BELLARY. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SMT. SUNITA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.3, IN PROCEEDINGS NO.KAM/BHOOMI/70/2012-13 AND FROM THE OFFICE OF RESPONDENT NO.4 IN PROCEEDINGSNO.KANDAYA/BHOOMI/ 14/2012-13; QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.01.2013 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER IN PROCEEDINGS NO.KAM/BHOOMI/70/2012-13, AND ORDER DATED 18.07.2013 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 TAHASILDAR PROCEEDINGS NO.KANDAYA/BHOOMI/14/2012-13 PRODUCED VIDE ANNEXURE-D AND G; AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2391 WP No. 85755 of 2013 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners have called in question the order dated 04.01.2013 passed by respondent No.3 - Assistant Commissioner and the consequential order dated 18.07.2013 passed by respondent No.4 - Tahsildar, whereby the petitioners have been directed to be evicted from the land bearing Survey No.118-B measuring 1 acre 68 cents, situated at Hire Hadligi Village, Bellari Taluk, under Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 2. Brief facts of the case: 2.1. The petitioners claim that their predecessor-in- interest was put in possession of land bearing Survey No.118-B pursuant to a revenue transfer agreement dated 01.08.1966 in favour of Durgappa, father of petitioner Nos.1(a) and 1(b) in respect of Sy. No.118-B measuring 1 acre 66 cents and part of Sy.No.118-C. Pursuant thereto, possession was delivered and the petitioners’ - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2391 WP No. 85755 of 2013 family has been in continuous, peaceful possession and cultivation since 1966. 2.2. It is the case of the petitioners that the Assistant Commissioner, at the instance of respondent No.5 passed an order dated 04.01.2013 treating the land as granted land in favour of the father of respondent No.5 and directed eviction under Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Consequent thereto, the Tahsildar passed order dated 18.07.2013 directing eviction. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned orders are without jurisdiction, passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without affording an opportunity of hearing. It is further argued that the land has been wrongly described as granted land in favour of the father of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2391 WP No. 85755 of 2013 respondent No.5. It is submitted that the petitioners are in settled possession since 1966 and cannot be summarily evicted. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 submits that Survey No.118-B is a granted land in favour of the father of respondent No.5 and that the petitioners are unauthorised occupants. It is contended that proceedings were rightly initiated under Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and after following due procedure, the Assistant Commissioner ordered eviction, which was rightly implemented by the Tahsildar through a consequential order. Hence, no interference is warranted. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 6. The petitioners seek to assert their right over the schedule property based on revenue transfer agreement and long-standing revenue entries - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2391 WP No. 85755 of 2013 reflecting their possession. However, it is well settled that a mutation entry or revenue record is only a fiscal entry; it neither creates nor extinguishes title. Even assuming that the petitioners’ names are reflected in the revenue records and they are shown in possession, such entries by themselves do not establish ownership over the said land. 7. The existence or validity of a grant in favour of the predecessor of respondent No.5 involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be conclusively adjudicated in the revenue proceedings. 8. Be that as it may, the petitioners themselves claim right over the schedule property based on a varadi given by the father of respondent No.5 and hence the petitioners cannot contend the absence of a grant order and the validity of the 1966 transaction. 9. Under Section 104 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the Assistant Commissioner is empowered - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2391 WP No. 85755 of 2013 to determine whether the occupation of Government land is lawful or unlawful. If the authority has proceeded on the basis of the records available before it, such adjudication is rightly determined. 10. The petitioners have not made out any procedural irregularities for jurisdictional error as to warrant interference. The appropriate remedy if the petitioners assert title or better rights is to approach the competent civil Court. 11. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. 12. It is made clear that any observations made herein shall not prejudice the rights of the petitioners to work out their remedies before the competent Civil Court, if so advised, in accordance with law. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1