MUTTAPPA S/O IRAGOND HOSAMANI vs MALLAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA KUDARI

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD


TH
DATED THIS THE 9 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

WRIT PETITION NO. 104656 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

MUTTAPPA S/O IRAGOND HOSAMANI
AGE 49 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. HIPPARAGI, TQ. RABAKAVI BANHATTI,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587311.
…PETITIONER



(BY SRI. GIRISH A. YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MALLAPPA S/O SIDDAPPA KUDARI
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DANAMMADEVI LAYOUT,
MAHALINGAPUR, TQ. MUDHOL,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587312.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOT,
NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587101.

3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JAMKHANDI,
VIDHAN SOUDHA, JAMKHANDI,
DIST. BAGALKOT 587301.

4. THE TAHASILDAR,
RABKAVI BANAHATTI, DIST. BAGALKOT 587311.
…RESPONDENTS






Digitally
signed by
SAROJA
HANGARAKI
Location:
high court of
karnataka,
dharwad
bench

(BY SRI. S.C. BHUTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R2 TO R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2024 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 IN SI. RA 44/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-F, AND
THE ORDER DATED 02.01.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 2

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025


IN NO. RP 53/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE-G, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.

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

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER


1. Petitioner, who claimed to have purchased 7 acres 10
guntas of land in R.S.No.42/3 situated at Rabakavi village
in terms of a registered deed of sale dated 30.01.2024
from the erstwhile owners, had applied for mutation of
his name in the revenue records. Accordingly, on
22.03.2024, respondent No.4-Tahasildar effected the
mutation vide MR No.H-56/2023-24.

2. Respondent No.1 herein claiming to have purchased a
plot measuring 30x40 in the said 7 acre 10 guntas of
land, had preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘Act, 1964’) questioning the mutation vide
MR No.H-56/2023 effected in the name of the petitioner.

3. The Assistant Commissioner in exercise of his purported
power under Section 136(2) of the Act, 1964 has held

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025


that the petitioner was entitled only for an extent of 6
acres of land, which was granted in favour of his vendor,
while the sale deed wrongly reflected 7 acres 10 guntas.
Therefore, there was a defect in the sale deed. He has
referred to the other revenue records such as Akarband
to justify his reasoning as noted above and accordingly
proceeded to set aside the mutation entries made in the
name of the petitioner by the respondent No.4-Tahasildar
and relegated the parties to go to Civil Court to have
their right adjudicated and has proceeded to direct
respondent No.4-Tahasildar to close the mutation
proceedings and to take action for violation of order of
change of land usage.

4. Against the said order of the respondent No.3-Assistant
Commissioner, petitioner herein preferred a revision
petition to the respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner in
Revision Petition No.53/2024, who by his order produced
at Annexure-G has merely reiterated the reasoning and
conclusion arrived at by the by the Assistant

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025


Commissioner in rejecting the said revision petition.
Hence, this petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court
through the records submits that neither the Assistant
Commissioner nor the Deputy Commissioner in
proceedings under Section 136(2) and 136(6)
respectively of the Act, 1964 have any jurisdiction to go
into the question of validity or otherwise of the title of the
petitioner or his vendors. Such exercise of jurisdiction is
one without the authority and is a nullity. The revenue
entries in respect of 7 acres 10 guntas of land stood in
the name of the vendor of the petitioner. Though the
grant order reflects and relates only to an extent of 6
acres, that itself would not be a ground for respondents
No.2 and 3 to have disputed the entitlement of the
vendor of the petitioner to the extent of 7 acres 10
guntas inasmuch as the revenue records stood in the
name of the vendor of the petitioner to an extent of 7
acres 10 guntas.

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025



6. He further submits it is not the case of the respondent-
Revenue Authorities that the land in excess of 6 acres
belonged to them. Therefore, the respondent-Revenue
Authorities have exceeded jurisdiction in passing the
impugned order.

7. As regards the claim of the private respondent No.1, he
submits the private respondent claimed to have
purchased a plot measuring 30x40 forming part of the
said land measuring 7 acres 10 guntas through and under
the purchasers from the original owner. Thus, he submits
without giving any specification of the said plot,
respondent No.1 could not have initiated and maintained
the proceedings detriment to the interests of the
petitioner. The respondent-Revenue Authorities have thus
erred in passing the impugned orders. Hence, seeks for
allowing the petition.

8. Learned HCGP submits though the grant order based on
which the petitioner claimed to have purchased the
property measures only 6 acres of land and the said 6
acres of land is reflected in Akarband, mutation entry in

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025


2296 which was effected subsequent to change of land
usage. Thus he submits that respondents No.2 and 3
based on the aforesaid revenue entries have come to the
conclusion of petitioner not being entitled for more than 6
acres of land to be entered in the revenue records. He
also adds that there is violation of terms of conversion
order.

9. Supplementing the submission, learned counsel for
respondent No.1 submits that the plot measuring 30x40
was purchased by him from the vendor of the petitioner.
That the vendor of the petitioner was entitled only for 6
acres of land. Therefore, the objection raised by him has
been taken note of the Revenue Authorities. Thus, he
justifies the order passed by the Revenue Authorities.

10. Heard. Perused the records.

11. Sections 128 and 129 of the Act, 1964 read as under:
“128. Acquisitions of rights to be reported.— (1) Any
person acquiring by succession, survivorship,
inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or
otherwise, any right as holder, occupant, owner,
mortgagee, landlord or tenant of the land or assignee of
the rent or revenue thereof, shall report orally or in
writing his acquisition of such right to the prescribed

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025


officer of the village within three months from the date of
such acquisition, and the said officer shall at once give a
written acknowledgment of the receipt of the report to
the person making it:
Provided that where the person acquiring the right is a
minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other
person having charge of his property shall make the
report to the prescribed officer:
Provided further that any person acquiring a right by
virtue of a registered document shall be exempted from
the obligation to report to the prescribed officer.
[Provided also that any person reporting under this sub-
section the acquisition by him of a right in partition in
respect of the land shall annex with the report a sketch
showing the metes and bounds and other prescribed
particulars of such land and such person shall get the
sketch prepared by a licensed surveyor.[or as
prescribed]]
Explanation I.— The rights mentioned above include a
mortgage without possession but do not include an
easement or a charge not amounting to a mortgage of
the kind specified in section 100 of the Transfer of
Property Act, 1882 (Central Act No. 4 of 1882).
Explanation II.— A person in whose favour a mortgage
is discharged or extinguished or a lease determined
acquires a right within the meaning of this section.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section
(1), the State Government may, by notification, appoint
any Revenue Officer to whom a report under sub-section
(1) may be made, in which case such officer shall give a
written acknowledgment of the receipt of such report to
the person making it, and forward the report to the
prescribed officer of the village concerned.
(3) If any person makes a report under sub-section (1)
or sub-section (2),-
(a) after the period of three months but within the
period of one year from the date of acquisition of
the right, the report shall be received on payment
of a penalty of two rupees;
(b) after a period of one year from the date of
such acquisition, the report shall be received on

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025


payment of a penalty of not less than two rupees
but not exceeding ten rupees, as may be
ordered.—
(i) by the Tahsildar, in case the report is
made under sub-section (1) to the
prescribed officer;
or
(ii) by the Revenue Officer, in case the
report is made to such officer under sub-
section (2).
(4) No document by virtue of which any person acquires
a right in any land as holder, occupant, owner,
mortgagee, landlord or tenant or assignee of the rent or
revenue thereunder, shall be registered under the Indian
Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act 12 of 1908), unless
the person liable to pay the registration fee also pays to
the registering authority such fees as may be prescribed
for making the necessary entries in the record of rights
and registers referred to in section 129; and on the
registration of such a document, the registering authority
shall make a report of the acquisition of the right to the
prescribed officer.
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 subsection (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:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025


(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.”


12. In terms of Section 128 of the Act, 1964, any person who
acquires any right in respect of immovable property in
the mode referred to thereunder is required to report
orally or in writing to the Prescribed Officer regarding the
acquisition of his right in respect of immovable
properties. Second proviso to the sub-section (1) of
Section 128 of the Act, 1964 exempts a person who has
acquired right by virtue of a registered document from
the obligation of reporting the same to the Prescribed
Officer. In other words, a person who acquires title over

- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025


the property other than inheritance, succession,
survivorship and in terms of any registered instrument,
need not have to report to the Prescribed Officer. Such
entries are expected to take place automatically. The
Revenue Officers have no option but to proceed with
entering the names of the person, who has acquired the
immovable property in terms of the registered document
thereof. However, sub-sections (3) and (4) of Section 129
of the Act, 1964 as noted above, provide for maintenance
of register of disputed cases. Perusal of the said Section
indicates that upon publication of public notice in the
manner provided thereunder, should the Prescribed
Officer receive any objection, a register containing the
dispute shall be opened and conduct a formal or
summary inquiry. This is the only power and jurisdiction
which is vested with the Prescribed Officer and not
beyond. If the title dispute involves complex factual and
legal aspects of the matter, the concerned Revenue
Officer shall keep his hands off and refer the parties to
the Competent Court of Civil Jurisdiction to have such
disputes resolved and he has no authority or the

- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025


jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the complex title disputes
between the parties.

13. In the instant case, upon the so-called dispute raised by
respondent No.1 regarding he having purchased a site
measuring 30’x40’ purportedly falling within 7 acre 10
guntas of land claimed by the petitioner, the Assistant
Commissioner has not only taken this as a disputed
matter, but has ventured into adjudicating and
determining the rights and title of the parties. He has
gone to the extent of verifying the grant order, under
which the vendor of the petitioner had acquired the land
and has juxtaposed the same with the revenue records.
Besides, he has also gone into the question regarding
violation of the order providing for change of land usage
for him to come to the conclusion of cancelling the
mutation entries made in the name of the petitioner.

14. Upon the revision filed before the Deputy Commissioner,
he has merely repeated the same reasoning while
rejecting the said revision petition.

- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025



15. Relevant portion f the order reads as under:
“D ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ®¨sÀå zÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥Àj²Ã°¸À¯ÁV,

A
) ¥Àæ¸ÀPÀÛ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ°è zÁªÁzÀ d«ÄãÀÄ j¸À £ÀA.42/3 DPÁgÀ§AzÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ
6-00 J.UÀÄ EgÀĪÀzÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½AiÀÄ DzÉñÀ
PÉJ¯ïDgï-J¸ïDgï-10/11/12/13/14/15/16/17 ¢£ÁAPÀ 17.11.1977 gÀ
¥ÀæPÁgÀ §¸À¥Àà ªÀĺÁ¤AUÀ¥Àà £Á¹ EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è UÉÃt ºÀPÀÄÌ
ªÀÄAdÆj¹zÀÄÝ qÀ £ÀA.2094 zsÀÈrÃPÀj¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß G¥À-
«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥Àæ²ßvÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è ¸ÀàµÀÖ ¥Àr¹zÁÝgÉ.

B
) ¸ÀzÀjà 6-00 J.UÀÄ PÉëÃvÀæ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀzÀjà §¸À¥Àà ªÀĺÁ¤AUÀ¥Àà £Á¹
EªÀgÀÄ ©£ï ±ÉÃwÌAiÀiÁV ¥ÀjªÀwð¹PÉƼÀîzÉà C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV ©£ï ±ÉÃwÌ
¥ÁèlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀa¹zÀÄÝ, £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀzÀjà §¸À¥Àà ªÀĺÁ°AUÀ¥Àà £Á² EªÀgÀÄ
C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV ©£ï±ÉÃwAiÀiÁV G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆArzÀÝ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ
¸ÀÄvÉÆÛÃ¯É ¸ÀASÉå: Dgïr-126-J¯ïDgïJªÀiï-79 ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.11.1979
gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À§ºÀÄzÁVzÀÝjAzÀ DUÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ PÁAiÉÄÝ
1964 gÀ PÀ®A 95 jAzÀ 98 gÀ°èAiÀÄ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼À C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß
¥ÀævÁåAiÉÆÃd£É ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ZÀ¯Á¬Ä¸À®Ä ¥Áæ¢üPÀÈvÀgÁV vÀºÀ²Ã®zÁgÀ
dªÀÄRAr EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀzÀjà d«ÄãÀÄ 6-00 J.UÀÄ PÉëÃvÀæzÀ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ
©£ï±ÉÃwÌAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¹ PÉ®ªÀÅ µÀgÀvÀÄÛUÉƼÀ¥Àr¹ ©£ï±ÉÃwÌ
G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀPÉÌ DzÉñÀ ¸ÀASÉå: AiÀÄÄJ£ïJ-J¸ïDgï-2 ¢£ÁAPÀ 04.09.1982
gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ C£ÀĪÀÄw¹zÀÄÝ ¸ÀzÀjà DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß qÀ £ÀA.2296 zsÀÈrÃPÀj¸ÀÄvÀÛzÉ
JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÆß G¥À-«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥Àæ²ßvÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è ¸ÀàµÀÖ
¥Àr¹zÁÝgÉ.

C
) ¸ÀzÀjà j¸À £ÀA.42 ªÀÄÆ®vÀB zÉêÀ¸ÁÛ£À E£ÁA d«ÄãÀÄ
DVgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ºÀ®ªÀÅ E£ÁA gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝ G¥À§AzsÀUÀ½UÉ
M¼À¥ÀqÀÄvÀÛzÉ. D ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄAdÆj¸À®àlÖ F
6-00 J.UÀÄ PÉëÃvÀæPÉÌ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ ¸ÀÄzsÁgÀuÁ PÁAiÉÄÝ 1961 gÀ PÀ®A 61
C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀĪÀ¢®è. PÁgÀt 15 ªÀµÀðUÀ¼À ºÀ¸ÁÛAvÀgÀ ¤µÉÃzsÀ F d«ÄäUÉ
C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀĪÀ¢®è. §zÀ¯ÁV PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ºÀ®ªÀÅ E£ÁA gÀzÀÝw PÁAiÉÄÝ
G¥À§AzÀUÀ½UÉ M¼À¥ÀqÀÄvÀÛzÉ. D ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ºÀ®ªÀÅ E£ÁA gÀzÀÝw
PÁAiÉÄÝ Cr UÉÃtÂzÁgÀgÀÄ ¨sÀÆ«ÄAiÀÄ C¢ü¨sÉÆÃUÀzÁgÀgÉAzÀÄ
£ÉÆÃAzÁ¬Ä¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ vÀºÀ²Ã®zÁgÀ dªÀÄRAr EªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ ¥sÁªÀÄð
£ÀA-2 gÀ ¥ÀæPÁgÀ ¸ÀzÀjà §¸À¥Àà ªÀĺÁ°AUÀ¥Àà £Á² EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀgÀÄ qÀ
£ÀA.2295 gÀ°è ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÁV £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀÄÝ ªÉÃzÀåªÁVzÉ JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÆß
G¥À-«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ¥Àæ²ßvÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è ¸ÀàµÀÖ ¥Àr¹zÁÝgÉ.

D)
PÁgÀt ¸ÀzÀjà §¸À¥Àà ªÀĺÁ¤AUÀ¥Àà, £Á¹ EªÀgÀÄ j¸À £ÀA.42 gÀ°è
CªÀjUÉ ¨sÀÆ £ÁåL ªÀÄAqÀ½¬ÄAzÀ ªÀÄAdÆj¹zÀ 6-00 J.UÀÄ PÉëÃvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß
©£ï ±ÉÃwÌAiÀiÁV ¥ÀjªÀwð¹PÉƼÀîzÉà C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV ©£ï ±ÉÃwÌ ¥ÁèlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß

- 13 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025


gÀa¹zÀÝ£ÀÄß £ÀAvÀgÀ ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¸À®ànÖgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀzÀjà ¥ÁèlÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß
«¯ÉÃUÉƽ¹zÀÝjAzÀ §¸À¥Àà, ªÀĺÁ¤AUÀ¥À, £Á¹ EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸ÀjUÉ PÀȶ
d«ÄãÀÄ G½zÀÄPÉƼÀÄîªÀ¢®è J£ÀÄߪÀ£ÀÄß M¥Àà¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ §¸À¥Àà
ªÀĺÁ¤AUÀ¥Àà £Á¹ EªÀjUÉ j¸À £ÀA 42 gÀ°è ¨sÀÆ £ÁåAiÀÄ ªÀÄAqÀ½¬ÄAzÀ
ªÀÄAdÆj¹zÀÝ PÉëÃvÀæ 6-00 J.UÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀæ EgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ CµÀÄÖ PÉëÃvÀæPÉÌ ªÀiÁvÀæ
CªÀgÀÄ ºÀPÀÄ̼ÀîªÀgÁV ©£ï ±ÉÃwÌ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ «¯ÉÃUÉƽ¹zÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ CxÀªÁ
CªÀgÀ ªÁgÀ¸ÀÄzÁgÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è j¸À £ÀA.42/3 gÀ°è 7-10 PÉëÃvÀæzÀ ¥ÀºÀtÂ
¥ÀwæPÉ C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀªÁVzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀjà ¥ÀºÀtÂ¥ÀwæPÉ gÀzÀÄ ¥Àr¹ PÀrªÉÄ ªÀiÁqÀĪÀ
§UÉÎ G¥À-«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÀ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ DzÉñÀzÀ°è ¯ÉÆÃ¥À PÀAqÀÄ
§gÀĪÀ¢®è.

E ILR 1997
) j«d£ï CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ G¯ÉèÃT¹zÀ ªÀgÀ¢AiÀiÁzÀ wÃ¥ÀÅð
Kar 2236 Karibasappa Kuravnteppa Maradibankar
/Vs/ Asst Commissioner Opportunity of being
. gÀ°è
heard
£ÀÄß «ªÀj¸À¯ÁVzÉ. D ªÉÄÃgÉUÉ G¥À-«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ
DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸ÀĪÀ ¥ÀǪÀð j«d£ï CfðzÁgÀjUÉ £ÉÆÃnøÀÄ ¤Ãr
CªÀgÀÄ ¤AiÀīĹzÀ £ÁåAiÀĪÁ¢UÀ¼À£ÀÄß D°¹ ¥Àæ²ßvÀ DzÉñÀ ºÉÆgÀr¹zÁÝgÉ.
ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥Àæ¸ÀPÀÛ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ C£À¢üPÀÈvÀ ©£ï ±ÉÃwÌAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀPÀæªÀÄUÉƽ¹zÀ §UÉÎ,
EgÀĪÀzÀjAzÀ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ (wzÀÄÝ¥Àr) Drð£À£Àì 1980 gÀ
PÀ®A 4 gÀ §UÉÎ G¯ÉèÃT¹zÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°èAiÀÄ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÀ
ªÁ¸ÀÛªÁA±ÀUÀ½UÉ ºÉÆðPÉ EgÀĪÀ¢®è. PÁgÀt j«d£ï CfðAiÀÄ°è
¥ÀjUÀt¸À§ºÀÄzÁzÀ CA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EgÀĪÀ¢®è.

F
) PÁgÀt C£À¢üPÀÈvÀªÁV ªÀÄÄAzÀĪÀgÉzÀ ¥ÀºÀtÂ¥ÀwæPÉ DzsÀj¹ EgÀ¯ÁgÀzÀ
d«ÄãÀÄ Rj¢¹zÀ §UÉÎ j«d£ï CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ¨sÁ¢vÀjzÀÝ°è ¸ÀPÀëªÀÄ ¹«¯ï
£ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÀAqÀÄPÉƼÀî¨ÉÃPÁUÀÄvÀÛzÉ. PÁgÀt ¥Àæ²ßvÀ
DzÉñÀzÀ°è ºÀ¸ÀÛPÉëÃ¥ÀzÀ CªÀ±ÀåPÀvÉ E®è. PÁgÀt F PɼÀPÀAqÀ

:DzÉñÀ:

¦ÃpPÉAiÀÄ°è ZÀað¹zÀ PÁgÀtUÀ½UÁV, j«d£ï CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ
¨sÁ¢vÀjzÀÝ°è ¢ªÁt £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ¯Éà ¥ÀjºÁgÀ PÀAqÀÄPÉƼÀî®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹
¥Àæ¸ÀPÀÛ j«d£ï CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁr DzÉò¹zÉ.

F DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑUÁgÀjUÉ GPÀÛ¯ÉÃR£À ¤Ãr, ¨ÉgÀ¼ÀZÀÄÑ ªÀiÁr¹,
¥ÀjµÀÌj¹, wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁr vÀgÀzÀ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 2/1/25 gÀAzÀÄ
§»gÀAUÀªÁV WÉÆö¹gÀÄvÉÛãÉ.

¸À»/-
¨Á.D.¸ÉÃ
(PÉ.JA.eÁ£ÀQ)
f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÁUÀ®PÉÆÃmÉ”

- 14 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025



16. At this juncture, learned HCGP brings to the notice of this
Court that one of the reason assigned in the impugned
order is exercise of such power to be referable to Section
25 of the Act, 1964, which purportedly confers inherent
jurisdiction with revenue officers.

17. Section 25 of the Act, 1964 reads as under:
“25. Saving of inherent powers of a Revenue
Court.—Nothing in this Act, shall be deemed to
limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the
Revenue Court to make such orders as may be
necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the
abuse of the process of the Revenue Court.”


18. Perusal of the said provision clearly manifests that the
respondent-Authorities seem to have misconceived their
jurisdiction in assuming the powers of a Civil Court in
determining the rights and extent of the entitlement of
the petitioner over the land. There cannot be any dispute
as already noted above, in Revenue Authorities relegating
the parties to Civil Court for adjudication of their title if it
involves complicated questions of fact and law. In any
event it was not open for the respondents-Assistant
Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner to have sat over

- 15 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025


a registered document and to come to the conclusion that
the said registered document did not confer right, title
and interest over the land in favour of the petitioner to an
extent of 7 acre 10 guntas of land.

19. Such finding and declaration can only be granted upon a
properly constituted proceedings before a competent
Court of Civil Jurisdiction. To that extent the impugned
orders requires to be quashed.

20. Further, though the Deputy Commissioner has relegated
the petitioner to the Civil Court, it is not clear whether
the petitioner has to seek declaration of his entire extent
of 7 acres 10 guntas of land or his relegation is only to
the extent of plot measuring 30x40 being claimed by
respondent No.1.

21. A registered document unless set aside by a competent
Court of law would carry its validity regarding the right,
title and interest created therein in respect of immovable
property. The Revenue Authorities therefore could not
have directed the petitioner to approach the Civil Court

- 16 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025


for seeking declaration of his 7 acres 10 guntas of land
when there is no dispute by anyone.

22. Though respondent No.1 claimed to have purchased a
plot measuring 30’x40’, it would in any event fall within
the 6 acres of land. Therefore, asking the petitioner to
seek for declaration of 7 acres 10 guntas of land is
unwarranted. Dispute therefore could have been only
between the petitioner and respondent No.1 to the extent
of 30’x40’ site and not to the extent of 7 acres 10 guntas
of land as directed.

23. Another aspect to be noticed is that while the petitioner
claims to have purchased 7 acres 10 guntas of land,
respondent No.1 claims to have purchased a plot
measuring 30’x40’ out of this extent of land i.e. plot
No.10. No records are furnished with regard to any layout
plan having been approved by any competent authorities.
Therefore, it is clarified that should the parties choose to
have their right determined it can only be to the extent of
30’x40’ site, which is purportedly purchased by

- 17 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:16838
WP No. 104656 of 2025


CNR: KAHC020132382025


respondent No.1 in terms of deed of sale dated
30.01.2024.

24. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, the writ petition is
allowed .

25. The impugned orders dated 27.06.2024 at Annexure-F
and 02.01.2025 at Annexure-G are quashed.

26. It is made clear that the entitlement of respondent No.1
so also the entitlement of the petitioner to the extent
being claimed by respondent No.1 is subject to the
outcome of a suit, which party may choose to file.

27. The revenue entries which are affected by respondent
No.4-Tahasildar are restored. The same are subject to
the outcome of such civil suit to be filed by the parties.


Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL)
JUDGE


SH
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 43