- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1767 WP No. 100738 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 100738 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: SRI. MALAGOUDA S/O. NARASAGOUDA PATIL AGE: 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLOL VILLAGE, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591201. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. PALLAVI S.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI-590001. 2. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANT FOR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND EX-OFFICIO DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR LAND RECORDS, BELAGAVI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. 3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR LAND RECORDS. CHIKODI SUB -DIVISION, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001. 4. THE TALUKA SURVEY OFFICER SURVEY DIVISION, TAHASILDAR OFFICE, CHIKODI, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591201. 5. SRI. NAGALINGASWAMY S. LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR LAND RECORDS, CHIKODI SUB-DIVISION, MANJANNA E Digitally signed by MANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.16 12:53:50 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1767 WP No. 100738 of 2021 TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591201. 6. SRI. SUBHASH ANAGOUDA PATIL MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLOL VILLAGE, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591201. 7. SRI. RAMAGOUDA BASAGOUDA PATIL MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KALLOL VILLAGE, TAL: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7; NOTICE TO R5 IS SERVED) 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.RB/LRAP/PODI/01/2019-20 DATED 28/01/2021 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE–A; AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The petitioner has approached this Court assailing the orders dated 20.08.2018, passed by the Appellate Authority and 28.01.2021, passed by the Revisional Authority, along - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1767 WP No. 100738 of 2021 with the consequential PT sheet and phodi prepared in respect of R.S.No.108/2 of Kallol village, Chikodi Taluk. 2. The dispute arises out of the revenue proceedings initiated on basis of an application submitted by respondent Nos.6 and 7 claiming partition within their family, pursuant to which, the revenue authorities undertook survey and subdivision of the entire extent of R.S.No.108/2, measuring 12 acres 12 guntas including the land purchased and possessed by the petitioner to an extent of 4 acres 4 guntas. Brief Facts: 3. The petitioner is the owner of 4 acres 4 guntas in R.S.No.108/2 of Kallol village, acquired under a registered sale deeds of the year 1981 and 1982 and is in possession thereof. Respondent Nos.6 and 7, who are the family members inter se submitted an application before the revenue authority seeking preparation of 11-E map, phodi hissa records, asserting that a partition has been taken - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1767 WP No. 100738 of 2021 place within their family. Based on such application, the revenue authorities proceeded to survey and subdivide the extent of R.S.No.108/2 measuring 12 acres 12 guntas resulting in a preparation of PT sheets, which was upheld in appeal and revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the very foundation of the application of respondent Nos.6 and 7 was a partition within their own family, the survey and subdivision ought to have been restricted only to the extent of 4 acres 4 guntas claimed by them and there was no jurisdiction or necessity to subject the entire survey number, including the petitioner's undisputed holdings, to podhi proceedings. It is further contended that if respondent Nos.6 and 7 claim any encroachment or boundary dispute, the same is a civil dispute, requiring adjudication by a competent civil Court and cannot be resolved under the summary revenue of proceedings. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1767 WP No. 100738 of 2021 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would contend that the survey and the phodi proceedings were conducted strictly in accordance with the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules and that the R.S.No.108/2 being a single survey number, the authorities were justified in surveying the entire extent to affect proper subdivision. It is contended that the petitioner, though a purchaser, was found to be in excess possession, and that the preparation of PT sheet and hissa records are based on survey measurements and pahani entries. 6. It is further contended that the revenue authorities were empowered to correct and regularize survey records, and that the appellate and the revision authorities upon such due consideration of records and rival submissions, have rightly declined to interfere. It is therefore contended that the writ petition is devoid of merits and does not warrant any interference. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1767 WP No. 100738 of 2021 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The point that arises for consideration is: “Whether the revenue authorities were justified in ordering survey and phodi of the entire R.S.No.108/2 when the application of respondent Nos.6 and 7 was based on an alleged family partition limited to their share and whether the dispute relating to excess possession or encroachment could have been decided in the revenue proceedings instead of relegating parties to the civil Court?” 8. The revenue authorities can conduct survey- phodi only to the extent of the land to which the lawful entitlement is asserted. When the basis of the application is a family partition, the authority jurisdiction is confined to that family share. They cannot enlarge the scope and redraw boundaries of entire survey numbers affecting third party purchaser. Respondent Nos.6 and 7 did not claim entitlement to the entire 12 acres 12 guntas. Their own case was that a partition was among their family members, - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1767 WP No. 100738 of 2021 limited to 4 acres 4 guntas. Once that is so, phodi of the petitioner's land, which is derived from registered sale deeds and not part of the alleged partition, travels beyond jurisdiction. Allegations of 26 guntas excess possession, overlapping boundaries, excess roads ratio etc. involve questions of fact, possession and title. Such issues cannot be conclusively adjudicated in revenue proceedings. 9. The settled position is that the revenue entries are fiscal in nature and do not decide civil rights. Accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed in part. ii. The impugned order passed by the Appellate and Revisional Authorities insofar as uphold the survey-phodi and preparation of PT sheet in respect of the entire R.S.No.108/2 are set aside. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1767 WP No. 100738 of 2021 iii. It is held that when an application of respondent Nos.6 and 7 are founded on family partition limited to their share of 4 acres 4 guntas, the revenue authorities exceeded its jurisdiction in subjecting the entire survey number to phodi thereby affecting the petitioner's independent holding derived under the registered sale deed. iv. The liberty is reserved to the parties to work out their remedies before the competent civil Court, if they claim encroachment, excess possession or boundary dispute. v. It is clarified that all the revenue orders shall be subject to the outcome of such civil proceedings and the revenue authority shall not give effect to the impugned phodi insofar as the petitioner's land is concerned. vi. Liberty is reserved to respondent Nos.6 and 7 to approach the competent authority for survey of their portion of lands i.e., 4 acres 4 guntas. Sd/- JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT/ Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27