- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2140 WP No. 106881 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 106881 OF 2024 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SADASHIVA S/O. YALLAPPA GUDAGAGOL AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, GURUVARA PETTA, UPAHARA GALLI, GOKAK TALUK, BELAGAVI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S.BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI 590001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL 591101. 3. THE TAHSILDAR GOKAK TALUK GOKAK-591218. 4. ASHOK RAMACHANDRA WADAGAVI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, OCCUPATION. AGRICULTURE, R/AT. 3088, RAVIVAHARA PETTA, GOKAK-591 218, DIST. BELAGAVI. 5. SMT. SUSHMA INDRACHAND OSWAL AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. HOMEMAKER, R/AT. 3088, RAVIVAHARA PETTA, GOKAK-591 218, DIST. BELAGAVI. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SMT. MANASI P.JIGAJINNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4 AND R5) MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.16 12:54:04 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2140 WP No. 106881 of 2024 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 09/09/2022 IN RTS/S.R-96/22-23 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 07/11/2023 IN R.A.NO.33/2023 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND THE ORDER PASSED BY 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 06/08/2024 IN RB/RTA/264/2023-2024 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has called in question the orders passed by the Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner, and Deputy Commissioner, whereby, mutation sought in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.134/1/4 has been declined, notwithstanding a registered relinquishment deed executed in his favour, on the ground that there is no proper akarbhand and that the survey particulars do not tally with the revenue records. Brief facts: 2. The land bearing Sy.No.134/1/4, measuring 52 acres and 38 guntas situated at Hulikatti village, Gokak - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2140 WP No. 106881 of 2024 taluk originally belonged to respondent Nos.4 and 5. Under registered relinquishment deed dated 27.06.2022 (Annexure-A), the said respondents relinquished their respective interest in favour of the petitioner to the extent of 11 acres 27 guntas and 20 acres respectively. The relinquishment deed refers to the parent survey number and specifies the extents released in acres and guntas. Based on the said deed, mutation was initially proposed, but the Tahsildar cancelled the same on the ground that the lands do not have a proper akarbhand and that the survey particulars and pahani do not tally. The appeal and the revision preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner respectively, confirming the said view. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the relinquishment deed is a registered document, and once such document is produced, the revenue authorities are bound to effect mutation. The mutation being only a fiscal entry, the authorities could not have refused mutation on - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2140 WP No. 106881 of 2024 the ground of absence of akarbhand. It is submitted that the relinquishment deed clearly specifies the extent in acres and guntas and therefore no further survey or demarcation is required. 4. Per contra, learned AGA submits that the relinquishment deed pertains to portion of a larger survey number and that the deed merely specifies the extent does not identify the land on the ground by boundaries or akar. It is submitted that in the absence of akarbhand and in view of the discrepancy in survey particulars, mutation cannot be effected as identity of the land remains uncertain. 5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. 6. On careful consideration of the material on record, this Court finds that the relinquishment deed (Annexure-A) merely specifies the quantum of land released in acres and guntas out of Sy.No.134/1/4. The deed does not contain any boundary, description, akar, sketch or - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2140 WP No. 106881 of 2024 demarcation, identifying the precise location of the released portion within the largest survey number. Though the relinquishment deed is based on earlier transactions, none of the documents in the chain of title, identify the land on the ground through survey demarcations. The deed therefore, conveys the right and extent but not the spatial identity of the land. 7. The mutation under Section 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘Act’ for short), though ministerial in nature, must necessarily correspond to a definite and identifiable parcel of land. When the transaction relates to a portion of a survey number and the identity of such is not ascertainable from the existing survey records, the preparation of akarbhand under Section 127 becomes indispensable. 8. In the present case, effecting mutation entry merely on basis of a numerical extent mentioned in the relinquishment deed would result in a mutation entry - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2140 WP No. 106881 of 2024 unanchored to ground reality and may lead to overlapping or conflicting entries in the revenue records. Therefore, the insistence by the revenue authorities on akarbhand cannot be termed arbitrary or illegal. However, the authorities erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim outright without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to seek preparation of the akarbhand in accordance with law. Accordingly, this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is disposed of with the following directions: a. The petitioner is at liberty to file an application before the competent authority for preparation of akarbhand/survey demarcation in respect of the land bearing Sy.No.134/1/4 in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2140 WP No. 106881 of 2024 b. Upon completion of the akarbhand and demarcation exercise, the concerned revenue authority shall consider the petitioner's request for mutation afresh, strictly in accordance with law and uninfluenced by the earlier impugned orders and pass appropriate orders within a period of six weeks thereafter. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45