- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1023 WP No. 104545 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 104545 OF 2014 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. DODDANNA @ RAJU S/O. CHANNARADDI BELKOPPA, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: PVT. SERVICE AND AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO. 6, ARUN COLONY, MANJUNATH NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI AND ALSO RESIDING AT: KARMADI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. 2. HANAMANTHRADDI S/O. CHANNARADDI BELKOPPA, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO. 6, ARUN COLONY, MANJUNATH NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI AND ALSO RESIDING AT: KARMADI VILLAGE, TQ: RON, DIST: GADAG. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.G.KADADAKATTI, ADVOCATE) MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.05 11:01:10 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1023 WP No. 104545 of 2014 AND: 1. ROHAN SOMALINGAPPA BELKOPPA SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN NATURAL FATHER SOMALINGAPPA S/O. CHANNARADDI BELKOPPA, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: DOCTOR, R/O. H NO. 6, ARUN COLONY, MANJUNATH NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD, HUBLI. 2. THE TAHASILDAR RON. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER GADAG. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GADAG. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.V.SOMAPUR, SRI. C.B.SHAKUNAVALLI AND U.G.KATTIMANI, ADVOCATES FOR R1; SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GADAG DATED 31.10.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY ALLOWING WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1023 WP No. 104545 of 2014 ORAL ORDER The petitioners have called in question the order dated 31.10.2012, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Gadag, whereby, the Revisional Authority interfered with the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner relating to mutation entries concerning agricultural land bearing R.S.No.145/1+2 situated at Karamadi village, Ron Taluk (‘subject land’ for short). Brief facts: 2. The petitioners claim that the subject land was inherited by them under a family arrangement in the year 1986, pursuant to which, their names were entered in the revenue records under Mutation Entry No.2469 dated 25.05.1986 and the said entry continued for several years. Subsequently, their names came to be deleted from the record of rights and the name of respondent No.1 was entered. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1023 WP No. 104545 of 2014 3. Aggrieved, the petitioners sought rectification before the Tahasildar, which was rejected. On appeal, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and restored the petitioners’ name. Thereafter, the said appellate order was challenged by respondent No.1 before the Deputy Commissioner, who allowed the revision and set aside the appellate order resulting in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded the limited scope of jurisdiction in mutation proceedings by entering into questions of title and ownership. It is urged that the mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes and do not confer title and that long standing mutation entries in favour of the petitioners could not have disturbed without a civil Court decree. It is further contended that the deletion of the petitioners’ name were effected without notice and in violation of the principles of natural justice. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1023 WP No. 104545 of 2014 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the mutation entry relied upon by the petitioners was itself illegal and not supported by the valid title documents. It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner on examination of the earlier revenue records, rightly found fault with the appellate order and restored the mutation in favour of respondent No.1. It is submitted that the disputed questions of fact arise which cannot be adjudicated in the writ petition. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 7. The dispute between the parties essentially revolves around rival claim of ownership title over the subject land. The allegation raised by both sides require examination of evidence, genealogy and title documents which cannot be undertaken either by the revenue authorities in mutation proceedings or by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. It is well settled that mutation - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1023 WP No. 104545 of 2014 entries are maintained only for fiscal purposes and neither confer or extinguish title. When serious disputes regarding ownership are raised, the proper course for the parties is to seek adjudication before the competent civil Court. Even when, an entry is alleged to be illegal, if such illegality is disputed and requires adjudication of title, revenue authorities are not competent to decide the same. 8. In the present case, the challenge to the Revisional Order would necessarily involve, this Court examining disputed facts of revenue and title issues which is impermissible under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order on merits. However, it is clarified that any mutation entry standing in the revenue record shall be subject to final adjudication by the civil Court and the finding recorded by the revenue authority shall not bind the civil Court. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1023 WP No. 104545 of 2014 ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed. ii. Reserving liberty to the parties to work out their rights before the competent civil Court. iii. It is made clear that the mutation entry shall remain subject to final outcome of such civil proceedings. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 18