- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:509 WP No. 108198 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 108198 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SHRI. PRATAPSINGH S/O. TULAJARAMSINGH THAKUR, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. CTS.11959, OM NAGAR, 1ST CROSS, PASTSON SHOW ROOM, BELAGAVI, TQ. DIST. BELAGAVI-590003. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANTOSH B. RAHUT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI-590001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI-590001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR BELAGAVI-590001. 5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNT ZADASHAHAPUR TQ. AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590014. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA) GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Digitally signed by GIRIJA A. BYAHATTI Date: 2026.01.22 15:27:10 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:509 WP No. 108198 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTIONS, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 CONSIDER THE REQUITE/REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER RECEIVED BY THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 5 DATED 12/08/2025 AND 02/09/2025 AND 24/10/2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, D, E RESPECTIVELY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondents 2 to 5 to consider and dispose of his representations dated 12.08.2025, 02.09.2025, and 24.10.2025, seeking mutation of his name in respect of the subject land situated at Zadsahapur Village of Belagavi Taluka, in accordance with the earlier orders passed by this Court. 2. Brief facts of the case: 2.1. The lands bearing various survey numbers situated at Zadsahapur Village of Belagavi Taluka, were originally granted in the year 1949 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:509 WP No. 108198 of 2025 by the Deputy Commissioner in favour of Tulajaramsingh Thakur and his brother Ragunathsingh Thakur, subject to the conditions imposed under the Government grant. 2.2. Upon the death of Tulajaramsingh Thakur, names of his legal heirs, including the petitioner, were entered in the revenue records to the extent of half share under Mutation Entry No.390. 2.3. Subsequently, a registered partition deed dated 1966 came to be relied upon, on the basis of which the mutation entries were altered. 2.4. The petitioner questioned the said mutation entries before the revenue authorities. Initially, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal. Thereafter, in W.P.No.100848 of 2021 and W.P. No.101573 of 2021, this Court, by order dated 08.11.2023, directed the authorities to effect - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:509 WP No. 108198 of 2025 mutation strictly in terms of the registered partition deed of 1966. 2.5. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted a representations dated 12.08.2025, 02.09.2025 and 24.10.2025, requesting the respondent authorities to effect mutation in accordance with the aforesaid order. 2.6. As the said representations were not considered, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Contention of the petitioner: 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue relating to the mutation entries stands conclusively determined by the orders passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions. Despite such clear and binding directions, respondents 2 to 5 have failed to consider petitioner’s representations. 3.2. It is further submitted that, by the impugned endorsement issued during the pendency of the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:509 WP No. 108198 of 2025 this writ petition, respondent Tahsildar has erroneously stated that no clear directions were issued by this Court, which is wholly contrary to the order dated 08.11.2023 passed by this Court. 4. Contention of respondents: 4.1. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - State submits that the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, has filed an affidavit stating that the names of the concerned parties/partition holders have already been entered in the revenue records in terms of the partition deed of 1966. Further, a reference is also made to multiple mutation proceedings, revision petitions, and writ proceedings. 4.2. It is contended that certain sales in favour of third parties were not brought to the notice of this Court in the earlier proceedings, thereby suppressing material facts, and that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:509 WP No. 108198 of 2025 petitioner is seeking to reopen issues that have already attained finality. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is only seeking consideration of his representations in light of the binding orders passed by this Court, which have attained finality. It is further submitted that the affidavit filed by the respondents does not explain as to why a reasoned decision has not been taken by the respondents on the representations submitted by the petitioner. 6. This Court has carefully considered the contentions urged and perused the material placed on record. 7. Respondents 2 to 5, being statutory authorities under the Act, are duty-bound to act in accordance with law, more so when there is a specific direction issued by this Court. Once a direction is issued by the Court, the concerned authority is obligated to implement the same. When the petitioner submitted representations - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:509 WP No. 108198 of 2025 specifically seeking implementation of the binding judicial orders, the authorities could not have remained passive. 8. The failure to consider petitioner’s representations, despite clear directions issued by this Court, amounts to arbitrariness and non-exercise of the jurisdiction vested in the respondents. The affidavit filed by the respondents does not dispute the receipt of petitioner’s representations, but merely seeks to justify non-consideration by referring to subsequent proceedings. The endorsement dated 03.11.2025 is non-speaking in nature and fails to demonstrate due consideration of petitioner’s representations as well as the directions issued by this Court. Accordingly, the affidavit does not furnish any lawful justification for the respondents’ failure to consider petitioner’s representations. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:509 WP No. 108198 of 2025 9. Without expressing any opinion on the merits or demerits of the petitioner’s claim, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to consideration of his representations in accordance with law and in light of the binding orders passed by this Court. 10. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. ii. Respondents No.3 and 4 are hereby directed to consider and dispose of petitioner’s representations dated 12.08.2025, 02.09.2025, and 24.10.2025, in the light of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. No.100848 of 2021 and W.P. No.101573 of 2021, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA gab Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47