- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:782 WP No. 106899 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO.106899 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. BOODIGIRIYAPPA S/O. CHIDANANDAPPA AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 5TH WARD, SALONI CROSS, TQ: KARATAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583229. 2. SHRI. BOODI MANIKYAPPA S/O. CHIDANANDAPPA AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 5TH WARD, SALONI CROSS, TQ: KARATAGI, DIST: KOPPAL 583229. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. H. N. GULARADDI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOPPAL DISTRICT, TQ & DIST: KOPPAL 583231. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TQ & DIST: KOPPAL 583231. 3. THE TAHASHILDAR KARATAGI TQ: KARATAGI, DIST: KOPPAL-583229. MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.02 10:02:14 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:782 WP No. 106899 of 2025 4. CHIDANADAPPA BOODI S/O. LATE MANIKYAPPA AGE: 80 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 20TH WARD, J. P. NAGAR, TQ: KARATAGI, DIST: KOPPAL 583229. 5. SMT. MUDIYAMMA W/O. CHIDANANDAPPA BOODI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 20TH WARD, J. P. NAGAR, TQ: KARATAGI, DIST. KOPPAL 583229. 6. KUMARI AMAJAMMA D/O. CHIDANANDAPPA BOODI AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: 20TH WARD, J. P. NAGAR, TQ: KARATAGI, DIST: KOPPAL 583229. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITON IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.01 DATED. 01/06/2023 BEARING ITS PRAKARNASANKYA.COM/APPEAL/44/2022- 23/887 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D AND CONSEQUENTLY ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.02 DTD. 24/6/2022 IN ITS REVENUE APPEAL NO.111/2021-22 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:782 WP No. 106899 of 2025 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER Petitioners have approached this Court calling in question the order dated 01.06.2023 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal District in Com.Appeal No.44/2022- 23 (Annexure-D) confirming the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Koppal in Revenue Appeal No.111/2021-22 (Annexure-C), whereby the challenge to the mutation entries effected pursuant to the compromise decree has been rejected. Brief facts: 2. The petitioners claim to be the children born to the first wife of respondent No.4 and assert rights over the subject lands, contending that they are ancestral properties. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 are the second wife and daughter of respondent No.4. It is not in dispute that respondent Nos.5 and 6 obtained certain lands pursuant to a compromise recorded in Criminal Miscellaneous - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:782 WP No. 106899 of 2025 No.468/2018, said compromise being in the nature of a permanent alimony by way of lands as lifetime maintenance. Based on the said compromise, applications were made before Tahsildar who effected mutation entry in favour of respondent Nos.5 and 6. Aggrieved, the petitioners preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (“the Act, 1964” for short), before the Assistant Commissioner, which came to be dismissed by order dated 24.06.2022, reserving liberty to the petitioners to work out their rights before the competent Civil Court. 3. The revision filed thereafter before the Deputy Commissioner also came to be dismissed on 01.06.2023, holding that the compromise had attained finality. These orders are assailed in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the lands are ancestral in nature and respondent No.4 had no authority to transfer or allot the same to respondent - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:782 WP No. 106899 of 2025 No.5 and 6. It is contended that respondent No.5, being the second wife, has no enforceable right over ancestral properties. It is further contended that the mutations are effected without notice to the petitioners and in violation of the principles of natural justice and the revenue authorities failed to examine the legality of the compromise and its effect on the rights of the petitioners. On these grounds it is sought that the impugned orders be quashed. 5. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material on record. 6. This Court finds no merits in the writ petition for the following reasons: (i) The mutation entries in question were admittedly based on a compromise decree passed by a competent Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.468/2018. The said compromise has not been set aside or questioned before any competent Civil Court till date. So long as the decree - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:782 WP No. 106899 of 2025 stands, the revenue authorities were justified in giving effect to the same for fiscal purposes. (ii) The scope of the proceedings under the Act, 1964 is limited. Revenue authorities are not competent to adjudicate upon the disputed questions of fact, title or validity of a compromise decree. Both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have rightly observed that if the petitioners claim any independent right, title or interest in the subject properties, the appropriate remedy is before the competent Civil Court. 7. The contention regarding ancestral nature of the properties and alleged illegality of the compromise involves disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated or gone into in a writ proceeding. 8. No perversity, jurisdictional error or violation of statutory provisions is demonstrated in the impugned orders warranting interference. For the foregoing reason, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:782 WP No. 106899 of 2025 this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is dismissed at the stage of preliminary hearing. ii. It is clarified that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioners from working out their remedies, if any, before the competent Civil Court in accordance with law. iii. Since the writ petition is disposed of at the preliminary stage, notice to respondent Nos.4 & 6 would not arise. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA EM CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14