- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:480 WP No. 100542 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 100542 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SHIVAPPA S/O. PARAPPA ARGINSHETTI AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST, R/O. KANKUR-587201, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DATTATRAYA J. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU, BENGALURU-560001. 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. 3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL SUB DIVISION, BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102. GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.28 10:34:27 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:480 WP No. 100542 of 2024 4. TAHASILDAR RAMDURGA, TQ: RAMDURGA, DIST: BELAGAVI-591123. 5. SHREENATH S/O. SHARNAPPA KALABASHETTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAKANUR-587201, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. 6. RANADE NARAYAN @ BAPU VITTA @ VITTAL RAO, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SAIDAPUR GALLI, GOKAK-581307, TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI.JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R5; PETITION AGAINST R6 IS DISMISSED AS ABATED VIDE ORDER DATED 04.03.2025) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 17-07-2023, BEARING NO.RB/RTA/58/2021-22, BELAGAVI, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-M 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:480 WP No. 100542 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 17.07.2023 passed by respondent No.2 - the Deputy Commissioner and further, seeks a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to restore the petitioner’s name in Column No.11 as Kabja Vatidar, and also to direct respondent No.4 to consider the representation dated 30.10.2021 filed by the petitioner (Annexure-L). 2. The case of the petitioner is that his father has purchased and was cultivating the land in question as Kabja Vatidar since the year 1981, and after his father’s demise, the petitioner has continued to remain in possession and cultivation of the land. The petitioner asserts that his name was reflected in the revenue records for several years. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent No.5 got his name entered in the revenue records on the basis of the alleged fake and fabricated - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:480 WP No. 100542 of 2024 documents. The petitioner challenged the mutation entry before the Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the appeal. However, the Deputy Commissioner in the Revision Petition, passed impugned order dated 17.07.2023, thereby sustaining the mutation entry in favour of respondent No.5, which is assailed in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the very foundation of the mutation entry is fraudulent as it is executed by a dead person. It is further submitted that the impugned order is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 submits that the mutation entry is based on a registered sale deed dated 07.01.2020 and the revenue authorities statutorily bound to give registered documents. Allegations of fraud or forgery relating to a registered document cannot be - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:480 WP No. 100542 of 2024 adjudicated in revenue proceedings and must be agitated before a competent Civil Court. Until the registered sale deed in set aside by a competent Court, the mutation entry cannot be interfered with. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned order and submits that no jurisdictional error or perversity is made out. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. It is undisputed that the mutation entry in favour of respondent No.5 is founded on a registered sale deed. The core contention of the petitioner is that the said sale deed is forged, as the executant had died much earlier. Such a plea squarely raises a dispute regarding the validity and genuineness of a registered document. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:480 WP No. 100542 of 2024 9. It is well settled law that the revenue authorities cannot adjudicate upon allegation of fraud or forgery relating to registered sale deeds, and their role is confined to maintaining revenue records based on existing registered documents. If the petitioner asserts that the sale deed is fraudulent, the proper and efficacious remedy available to him is to challenge the said registered sale deed before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law. The lodging of a criminal complaint or pendency of criminal proceedings, by itself, does not render the registered document non est in the eye of law, nor does it empower revenue authorities or this Court in writ jurisdiction to ignore such document. 10. In the absence of any challenge to the registered sale deed, the mutation entry affected pursuant thereto cannot be interfered with. The Deputy Commissioner while passing the impugned order has acted within the bounds of his jurisdiction, and no violation of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:480 WP No. 100542 of 2024 principles of natural justice or statutory provisions is made out. 11. For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and accordingly pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merit. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1