- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1764 WP No. 102546 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 102546 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SANAULLA S/O. SATHAR SAB, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, AGRICULTURISTM, R/O. SINGRIHALLI VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-572129. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DR. REVANNA BELLARY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHIVANAND MALASHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT, HOSPETE-583201. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HARAPANAHALLI, TALUK: HARAPANAHALLI, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583131. 4. THE TAHASILDAR, HARAPANAHALLI, TALUK: HARAPANAHALLI, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583131. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.13 12:02:03 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1764 WP No. 102546 of 2022 5. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, NADAKACHERI, ARASIKERE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583131. 6. SMT. PAKKIRAMMA W/O. LATE. DUGGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. SINGRIHALLI VILLAGE, HARAPANAHALLI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-572129. 7. SRI. MATAD KOTRAYYA S/O. VEERAYYA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE, R/O. MUDAHADADI VILLAGE, DAVANGERE TALUKA, DAVANGERE DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1-R5; SRI. ARAVIND D. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R6; NOTICE TO R7 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2022 IN KAM/APPEAL/71/2021-22 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 17.12.2019 IN RA/CR/255/2011-12 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 TO CONTINUE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN COLUMN NO.9 OF RTC OF SY.NO.44/A TO THE EXTENT OF 3 ACRE 15 GUNTAS AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1764 WP No. 102546 of 2022 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court calling in question the order dated 02.06.2022, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby, the revision filed by respondent No.6 was allowed and the earlier appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner directing mutation in favour of the petitioners was set aside. Brief facts: 2. The land bearing Sy.No.44/A, measuring 3.15 acres situated at Shingirhalli Village is a subject matter of dispute. The petitioner claims through a registered sale deed dated 11.01.2011 executed by Shivaputraiah, whose name stood in the revenue records pursuant to the earlier partition and mutation proceedings. Respondent No.6 claims that one Deviramma has executed a sale deed in favour of Duggappa, the husband of respondent No.6, who purchased it under a registered sale deed dated 21.12.1974. Objections were raised by respondent No.6 relating to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1764 WP No. 102546 of 2022 revenue proceedings. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 17.12.2019, allowed the appeal and directed mutation in favour of the petitioner. However, in revision, the Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order dated 02.06.2022, set aside the appellate order and directed correction of the revenue entries in favour of Respondent No.6 to the extent of 2.03 acres relying upon the earlier civil Court’s finding and historical revenue records. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Deputy Commissioner has exceeded the scope of revenue jurisdiction by entering into questions of title and validity of sale deeds. It is submitted that mutation entries being fiscal in nature, the revenue authorities could not have unsettled long standing entries in favour of the petitioner. Reliance is placed on Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (‘Act’ for short), to contend that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for value. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1764 WP No. 102546 of 2022 4. A memo has been filed producing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.133/2004, R.A.No.30/2010, and further O.S.No.233/2011 to demonstrate that there are findings against respondent No.6 and her alleged vendor Deviramma. It is argued that O.S.No.223/2011, the Trial Court has recorded a finding that respondent No.6 has failed to prove that her deceased husband, Duggappa, purchased a property from Deviramma, which according to the petitioner, disentitles respondent No.6 from claiming mutation. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.6 submits that the impugned order is passed after considering earlier civil Court judgments, genealogy and historical revenue records. The civil Courts, while dismissing the suits, have made observations recognizing the sale transaction of 1974 in favour of the husband of respondent No.6 to the extent of 2.03 acres. It is contended that the mutation entries made pursuant to the Assistant Commissioner's order were contrary to the civil Court's finding and the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1764 WP No. 102546 of 2022 Deputy Commissioner has not adjudicated title but has merely aligned revenue entries with existing civil Court findings. It is contended that disputed questions of title cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction and the petitioner has an efficacious remedy before the civil Court. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. The dispute between the parties essentially revolves around title and computing claims based on rival sale transaction. Multiple civil suits including O.S.No.133/2004, R.A.No.30/2010 and O.S.No.223/2011, have already been instituted and adjudicated between the parties and their previous predecessors in interest. 8. Though the petitioner seeks to rely upon the certain observations in the civil Court judgments to contend that, the claim of the respondent stands vacant. It is evident that none of the civil Courts have conclusively declared title in favour of the petitioner. The Trial Court held in O.S.No.223/2011 that under the Ex.D1, it reveals that on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1764 WP No. 102546 of 2022 21.12.1974, one Deviramma wife of Matada Veeriah had executed sale deed in favour of Duggappa, the husband of respondent No.6, in respect of land bearing Sy.No.44/A measuring 2.03 acres, and the finding was that there are no materials to show that 3.15 acres in fact of land in Sy.No.44/A was sold to Duggappa and observed that under Ex.D1 it makes clear that Deviramma i.e., plaintiff No.1 had sold 2.03 acres of land in Sy.No.44/A to Duggappa. 9. The Deputy Commissioner, while exercising revisional jurisdiction has taken note of the Civil Court’s findings and historical revenue entries and has passed the impugned order only for the purpose of maintaining the revenue records in conformity with such findings. This Court does not find that the Deputy Commissioner has finally adjudicated title, which is otherwise beyond the scope of the revenue proceedings. 10. It is well settled that the mutation entries do not confer title and where serious disputes regarding ownership exist, a party must necessarily work out their remedies - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1764 WP No. 102546 of 2022 before the competent civil Court. In the presence of such disputed questions of facts and title, exercise of writ jurisdiction is neither appropriate nor warranted. The reliance placed by the petitioner on Section 41 of the Act and the civil Court’s judgment would require appreciation of evidence, which cannot be undertaken in the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise in O.S. No.223/2011, it has been held that Deviramma-plaintiff No.1 has sold 2.03 acres of land in Sy.No.44/A to Duggappa and the mutation entry has been effected thereto. 11. For the foregoing reason, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition, accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT CT-vh LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 24