- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1210 WP No. 101754 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.101754 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. CHANABASAVVA W/O. BALAPPA JALI AGE. 63 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ROLLI, NOW AT HONNAKATTI, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 2. SHRI. MALLAPPA S/O. BALAPPA JALI AGE: 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. ROLLI, NOW AT HONNAKATTI, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.C.HUKKERI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SANGAWWA W/O. SHANKARGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KADAMPUR, TQ. AND DIST: BAGALKOT. 2. SMT. SAVITRI W/O. SHIDDALINGAPPA AMBALI, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. SHIRUR, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT. 3. SMT. YALLAVVA @ RENUKA W/O. MALLAPPA YELEMMI, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HALAPET SWAGI GALLI TP NO.195 WARD-6, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.07 10:07:53 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1210 WP No. 101754 of 2025 4. SMT. GOURAVVA W/O. DUNDAPPA MANAGULI, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ANAGAWADI, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 5. SMT. RENUKA D/O. BALAPPA JALI AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. ROLLI, TQ. BILAGI, NOW AT HONNAKATTI, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT. 6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT NAVANAGAR, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT. 7. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BILAGI, TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT. 8. THE THASILDAR BILAGI TQ. BILAGI, DIST. BAGALKOT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R6 TO R8; NOTICE TO R1 TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT, OF CERTIORARI OR ANY SUCH OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT UNDER KRA/BHUMI/C.R/262/2024-25 DATED. 15-10-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, AND ALSO QUASH THE IMPIGNED ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT UNDER KRA/BHUMI/C.R/114/2023- 24 DATED. 13-03-2024 VIDE ANNEXURE0-J IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; TO DIRECT THE 6TH 7TH AND 8TH RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER NO. 1, 3.10.2024, 08.10.2024, 09.10.2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-D, E 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:1210 WP No. 101754 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioners are assailing the impugned endorsement issued by the revenue authorities, whereby the request of the petitioners to effect mutation entries in revenue records pursuant to a compromise final decree passed in FDP No.22/2024, on the file of 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot, has not been acted upon. The petitioners seek a direction to the respondent- authority to consider their representation and enter their names in the revenue records in terms of the compromise decree. 2. Brief facts: The schedule properties were subject matter of OS No.304 of 2022, on the file of 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot, which culminated in a judgment and decree dated 23.09.2023. Thereafter, in FDP No.22/2024, the parties entered into a compromise under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Pursuant - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1210 WP No. 101754 of 2025 to which, the competent Civil Court passed a final decree on 14.09.2024, whereunder petitioner No.1 became the absolute owner of the entire scheduled properties. 3. Based on the said compromise final decree, the petitioners submitted a representation to the jurisdictional revenue authority seeking mutation of their names in the record of rights. However, the Tahsildar issued an impugned endorsement declining to act upon the decree on the ground that certain procedural requirements including production of Form No.11 and other documents, were not complied with. Aggrieved by the said endorsement and the inaction of the authorities despite a binding Civil Court decree, the petitioners are before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners admits that once a compromise decree passed by competent Civil Court has attained finality, the revenue authorities are bound to give effect to the same and cannot refuse mutation by raising technical or procedural objections. It is contended - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1210 WP No. 101754 of 2025 that the impugned endorsement amounts to sitting in appeal over a Civil Court decree, which is impermissible in law. It is further contended that the petitioners are ready and willing to produce all the necessary documents, if required and the authorities ought to have verify the same, instead of rejecting the request. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents-State submits that the revenue authorities are required to verify documents before effecting mutation and that the endorsement issued only calling upon the petitioners to comply with the procedural requirement. 6. The undisputed material on record discloses that a compromise final decree has been passed in FDP No.22/2024, by a Civil Court and the said decree has attained finality. The decree conclusively determines rights of a party and specifies whose name is required to be entered in the revenue records. The Tahsildar is not vested - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1210 WP No. 101754 of 2025 with an adjudicate power to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of a compromise decree passed by a Civil Court. The scope of Tahsildar is confined only to giving ministerial effect to the decree by carrying out consequential entries in the revenue records. Thus, an enquiry as to whether the compromise is proper or otherwise, is wholly outside the jurisdiction of revenue authority. The Tahsildar is only supposed to verify the documents and effect mutation entry as permissible in law. Though this Court is conscious that the statute provides for an alternative remedy, the manner in which the Tahsildar has refused to implement a binding Civil Court decree demonstrates illegality and a failure to exercise jurisdiction. In such circumstances, relegating the petitioners to an alternative remedy would not be appropriate. Hence, this Court entertains this petition and the impugned endorsement warrants interference. 7. Accordingly, the Court pass the following; - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1210 WP No. 101754 of 2025 ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned endorsement issued by the respondent No.8-Tahsildar dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure-F), is hereby quashed. iii. The respondents are directed to enter the names as per the compromise decree passed in FDP No.22 of 2024, on the file of the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Bagalkot, without embarking upon any enquiry as to the validity or propriety of the said decree, after verifying the necessary documents in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AM/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3