SRI. SIDDARAJ B.K. S/O B.K. MUKKANNA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/100055/2025 · 2026-01-22
K S Hemalekha
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 53656 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 53656 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:765 WP No. 100055 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. 100055 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
SRI. SIDDARAJ B.K. S/O B.K. MUKKANNA, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: DAMMUR KAGGAL VILLAGE, TAL: AND DIST: BALLARI-583 101. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. PALLAVI S. PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BALLARI, DIST. BALLARI-583 101.
3.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BALLARI, TAL AND DIST: BALLARI-583 101.
4.
THE TAHASILDAR, BALLARI, TAL AND DIST. BALLARI-583 101.
5.
THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, BALLARI, TQ AND DIST: BALLARI-583 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING NO.
APL/71/2024 DATED 23/10/2024 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 MARKED AT ANNEXURE – A AND ETC.,
GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.01.31 10:34:04 +0530
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:765 WP No. 100055 of 2025
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
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 05.09.2023 passed by respondent No.4–Tahsildar (Annexure-C), whereby respondent No.4 refused to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records on the ground that Column No.6 of the Record of Rights contained an entry of ‘Inam’. The said order was confirmed by respondent No.3–Assistant Commissioner by order dated 28.05.2024 (Annexure- B) and further affirmed by respondent No.2–Deputy Commissioner by order dated 23.10.2024 (Annexure- A).
2.
Brief facts of the case:
2.1. The property in question bearing Survey No.38/A measuring 5 acres 57 guntas, situated at Dammur Kaggal Village, is claimed to have been
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:765 WP No. 100055 of 2025
originally owned by one K. Chandrasekhar, S/o. Veerabhadrappa. The land is stated to be the ancestral property of the said K. Chandrasekhar, and Column No.6 of the Record of Rights reflected the nature of the land as ‘ancestral’.
2.2. It is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to the
order passed by the Tahsildar dated 08.02.1985, the pokal entry describing the land as ‘Inam’ in Column No.6 of the Record of Rights was struck off. Thereafter, the name of the original owner was entered in the mutation records. 2.3. Subsequently, K. Chandrasekhar executed a registered sale deed in favour of one B.K. Govindappa in the year 1987, pursuant to which Govindappa’s name was entered in the revenue records under Mutation Entry No.30/91-92. 2.4. The petitioner thereafter purchased the scheduled property from the said B.K.
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:765 WP No. 100055 of 2025
Govindappa and his children under a registered sale deed dated 03.05.2023. 3. Contention of the petitioner:
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ‘Inam’ entry in Column No.6 of the Record of Rights had already been deleted as per the order of the Tahsildar order dated 08.02.1985, and pursuant thereto, the names of the original owners were duly reflected in the mutation records. 3.2. It is contended that at no point of time thereafter there was any subsisting ‘Inam’ entry. 3.3. The impugned order passed by respondent No.4 is therefore based on an erroneous assumption that Column No.6 still contained an ‘Inam’ entry. 4. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents justified the order passed by the Tahsildar and confirmed by the
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:765 WP No. 100055 of 2025
Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, contending that the rejection of the petitioner’s claim is based on valid grounds and does not call for interference by this Court. 5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel on both sides and perused the material on record. 6. Undisputedly, the entry of ‘Inam’ in Column No.6 of the Record of Rights was deleted by the order of the Tahsildar dated 08.02.1985. Pursuant thereto, the name of K. Chandrasekhar, the original owner, was entered in the revenue records. He thereafter executed a registered sale deed in favour of B. K. Govindappa, whose name was mutated under Mutation Entry No.30/91-92. The said Govindappa, in turn, executed a registered sale deed dated 03.05.2023 in favour of the petitioner. - 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:765 WP No. 100055 of 2025
7.
The impugned order passed by respondent No.4 refusing to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records on the ground that there existed an ‘Inam’ entry is wholly unjustified. The impugned order does not disclose any basis for concluding that the ‘Inam’ entry continued to exist, particularly when the Tahsildar had admittedly cancelled/deleted the same by order dated 08.02.1985. 8. Under such circumstances, the orders passed by the Tahsildar and confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner are unsustainable in law and warrant interference by this Court. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. The impugned order dated 05.09.2023 passed by respondent No.4–Tahsildar (Annexure-C), order dated 28.05.2024 passed by respondent No.3–
- 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:765 WP No. 100055 of 2025
Assistant Commissioner (Annexure-B), and order dated 23.10.2024 passed by respondent No.2– Deputy Commissioner (Annexure-A) are hereby quashed. iii. Respondent No.4–Tahsildar is directed to reconsider the matter afresh in accordance with law and enter the name of the petitioner in the Record of Rights pertaining to Survey No.38/A measuring 5 acres 57 guntas, situated at Dammur Kaggal Village, on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 03.05.2023, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
gab CT-ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7