SHRI. VEERBHADRAPPA BASVANEPPA ARAVALLI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17099
WP No. 107365 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020028452017



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

WRIT PETITION NO. 107365 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

1. SHRI. VEERBHADRAPPA BASVANEPPA ARAVALLI,

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: KADROLLI VILLAGE, TAL: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.



2. SHRI.BABU RUDRAPPA ARAVALLI,

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

R/O: KADROLLI VILLAGE, TAL: BAILHONGAL,

DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.



3. SHRI.PRAKASH RUDRAPPA ARAVALLI,

AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
ROHAN
HADIMANI
T

R/O: KADROLLI VILLAGE, TAL: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.


Digitally signed by
ROHAN HADIMANI T
Location: high court of
karnataka, dharwad bench
Date: 2026.10.31 11:26:45
+0530
4. SHRI.BASAVRAJ RUDRAPPA ARAVALLI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: KADROLLI VILLAGE, TAL: BAILHONGAL,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ S. BALLOLLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17099
WP No. 107365 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020028452017


1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION,
TAL: BAILHONGAL-591102,
DIST: BELAGAVI.

3. THE TAHSILDAR
BAILHONGAL SUB-DIVISION,
TAL: BAILHONGAL-591102,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE IMPUGNED MUTATION ENTRY BEARING M.E.NO.5266
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3/TAHASILDAR AT ANNEXURE-H AND
ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17099
WP No. 107365 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020028452017


ORAL ORDER



1. This matter was heard at some length on
29.09.2026. After hearing learned counsel, this Court had
made the following order:
“The subject matters of this writ petition are orders
passed by the Tahsildar (Annexure-H) and the Assistant
Commissioner (Annexure-M). The averments in the writ
petition and also the prayer make it abundantly clear
that the order dated 01.12.1974 at Annexure-H is a
mutation entry being ME No.5266. If that is so, the said
order would be an order permitting mutation of entries
in the revenue records by deleting the names of the
private persons recorded and entering the Government
consequent upon vesting of the lands under Section 44
of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. In that event,
no appeal would lie under Section 118 of the Karnataka
Land Reforms Act, 1961 to the Assistant Commissioner.

By order dated 28.07.2026, this Court had directed
the learned Additional Government Advocate to secure
the records on the basis of which, the order dated
18.07.1974 (Annexure-H) was passed.

Learned Additional Government Advocate seeks
some more time to produce the said records.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17099
WP No. 107365 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020028452017


As a last opportunity, list this matter on
07.10.2026.”


2. Today, learned AGA has produced the original
records pertaining to the case.


3. As has already been recorded in the earlier order
dated 29.09.2026, the grievance of the petitioners is
regarding the mutation of revenue records dated
12.10.1974 produced as Annexure-H to the Writ Petition.
The grievance of the petitioners is that in mutation
No.5266, the name of the Government was entered in the
revenue records in respect of the lands in question. It is
this entry in the Register of Mutations dated 12.10.1974
which was called in question by the petitioners herein by
filing an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner,
Bailhongal in Appeal No.KLR/AP-24/2009-10.


4. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated
09.12.2016 (Annexure-M) rejected the appeal filed by the

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17099
WP No. 107365 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020028452017


petitioners. This order has been challenged by way of the
Writ Petition.


5. Sri Shivaraj S. Ballolli, learned counsel for the
petitioners contends that from the original records
produced by the learned AGA, there is a reference to an
application seeking occupancy rights filed by some person
which was rejected. It is therefore his contention that
since the claim for grant of occupancy rights was rejected,
there was no vesting of the lands under Section 44 of the
1
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 and therefore the
lands ought to be treated as being in the ownership of the
petitioners and hence, the revenue entries ought to have
followed such ownership. This contention is opposed by
the learned AGA.


6. As attractive as it may appear, the contention of
Sri Ballolli is fallacious because there may be vesting
either under Section 44 of the KLR Act or for some other

1
Hereinafter referred to as ‘KLR Act’, for short

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17099
WP No. 107365 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020028452017


reason. Merely because the claim of one person for
occupancy rights has been rejected, it cannot lead to an
inference that the lands were not tenanted lands and
therefore vesting under Section 44 of the KLR Act did not
follow by operation of law. It may very well be that the
lands did vest by operation of law but the right persons did
not make a claim by giving evidence as per law to justify
the grant of occupancy rights. Therefore, the rejection of
one application for grant of occupancy rights as is found in
the original records is of no help to the petitioners.


7. Coming back to the scope of the Writ Petition,
what is called in question is the order at Annexure-M by
which the Assistant Commissioner has rejected the appeal
filed by the petitioners. The appeal was filed by the
petitioners purportedly under Section 118 of the KLR Act.
An appeal under Section 118 of the KLR Act will lie from
specified orders which are expressly mentioned in the
section. The petitioners seek to rely on Section 118(2-b)

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17099
WP No. 107365 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020028452017


to contend that an appeal from an order of the Tahasildar
shall lie to the Assistant Commissioner. For ease of
reference, provisions of Section 118 are reproduced herein
below:
“118.[(2-B) From every order passed by the
Tahsildar, an appeal shall lie to the Assistant
Commissioner and the order of the Assistant
Commissioner on such appeal shall be final.]”


8. The entry in the Register of Mutations at
Annexure-H, by which, the name of the Government has
been entered is an exercise relatable directly to Section
2
129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 . The entry
in the Register of Mutations at Annexure-H does nothing
more than mutate the name of the Government in place of
the erstwhile occupant/owner. In fact, a reading of the
entry in the Register of Mutations at Sl.No.5266
(Annexure-H) shows that there is not even a reference to
the provisions of the KLR Act or that the mutation in
favour of the Government is because of vesting under

2
‘Land Revenue Act’ for short

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17099
WP No. 107365 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020028452017


Section 44 of the KLR Act. In these circumstances, it is
incorrect to contend that the mutation entry No.5266 in
the Register of Mutations at Annexure-H is an order of the
Tahasildar under any of the provisions of the KLR Act. It is
a pure case of change of mutation of revenue entries in
the Register under the provisions of the Land Revenue Act.
In this context, it is pertinent to notice the provisions of
Sections 129 and 136 of the Land Revenue Act:
“129. Registration of Mutations and
Register of Disputed Cases.- (1) The
Prescribed Officer shall enter in the Register of
Mutations every report made to him under sub-
section (1) of Section 128 or received by him
under sub-section (2) or sub-section (4) of the
said section.

(2) Whenever a Prescribed Officer makes
an entry in the Register of Mutations, he shall at
the same time post up a complete copy of the
entry in a conspicuous place in the chavadi and
shall give written intimation to all persons
appearing from the Record of Rights or Register
of Mutations to be interested in the mutation,
and to any other person whom he has reason to
believe to be interested therein.

(3) Should any objection to any entry
made under sub-section (1) in the Register of
Mutations be made either orally or in writing to
the Prescribed Officer, it shall be the duty of the
Prescribed Officer to enter the particulars of the
objection in a Register of Disputed Cases.

- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17099
WP No. 107365 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020028452017


(4) The objections entered in the Register
of Disputed Cases and such other objections as
may be made during the enquiry shall be
enquired into and disposed of by such Officer
and in such manner as may be prescribed.
Orders disposing of such objections shall be
recorded in the Register of Mutations by such
Officer.

(5) The Officer holding an enquiry under
sub-section (4) shall have all the powers under
Chapter III, that a Revenue Officer has in
making a formal or summary enquiry under this
Act.

(6) Entries in the Register of Mutations
shall be tested and if found correct or after
correction, as the case may be, shall be certified
by such Officer as may be prescribed.

(7) The transfer of entries from the
Registers of Mutations to the Record of Rights
shall be effected in the prescribed manner,
provided that an entry in the Register of
Mutations shall not be transferred to the Record
of Rights until such entry has been duly
certified.

136. Appeal and Revision.- (1) The
provisions of Chapter V shall not apply to any
decision or order under this Chapter.

(2) Any person affected by an order made
under sub-section (4) or an entry certified
under sub-section (6) of Section 129 may,
within a period of sixty days from the date of
communication of the order or the knowledge of
the entry certified, appeal to such Officer as
may be prescribed by the State Government in
this behalf and his decision shall be final.

(3) The Deputy Commissioner may, on his
own motion or on application of a party, call for
and examine any records made under Section

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17099
WP No. 107365 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020028452017


127 and Section 129 and pass such orders as he
may deem fit:

Provided that no order shall be passed
except after hearing the party who would be
adversely affected by such order.”


9. Since the entry in the Register of Mutations at
Annexure-H is an exercise under Section 129 of the Land
Revenue Act, the remedy against any such entry in the
Register of Mutation is under Section 136 of the same Act.
It can be seen that an appeal lies to the prescribed officer
who acts as the Appellate Authority under Section 136(2).
The State Government in exercise of the powers delegated
to it, has designated the Assistant Commissioner as the
Appellate Authority against an entry in the Register of
Mutations under Section 129. The provisions of Section
136(2) make it very clear that such an appeal ought to be
filed within 60 days from the date of the entry.


10. In the present case, the appeal to the Assistant
Commissioner by invoking Section 118(2-b) of the KLR Act
to challenge the entry in the Register of Mutations dated

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17099
WP No. 107365 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020028452017


12.10.1974 was surely not maintainable. The mutation in
the Register of Mutations being one under Section 129 of
the Land Revenue Act, the petitioners could not have
challenged the same by filing an appeal under Section
118(2-b) of the KLR Act. When the appeal itself was not
maintainable, no fault can be found with the Assistant
Commissioner in rejecting the appeal.


11. Furthermore, it is necessary to note that the
appellate remedy under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964 is available within the period of
limitation prescribed by the statute. The statute prescribes
a limitation of 60 days to file an appeal before the
Appellate Authority. That period of limitation mandated by
the statute cannot be surpassed or bypassed by taking
recourse to Section 118(2-b) of the KLR Act. If such
approach is encouraged, the statutory period of limitation
will be rendered otiose. In the present case, the entry in
the Register of Mutations dated 12.10.1974 is sought to be

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:17099
WP No. 107365 of 2017


CNR: KAHC020028452017


challenged by an appeal filed before the Assistant
Commissioner in the year 2009. For this reason also the
appeal before the Assistant Commissioner had to fail.


12. On an overall conspectus of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the petitioners have failed to
make out any ground for interference with the impugned
order of the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-M, far
less any ground to interfere with mutation entry in the
Register of Mutations dated 12.10.1974 (Annexure-M). In
these circumstances, the following order is made :
ORDER
The Writ Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.



Sd/-
(RAGHAVENDRA SEETHARAM SRIVATSA)
JUDGE



NAA
CT:SD
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 31