Disputed title claims underlying revenue entries must be adjudicated by the civil court.

The petitioners challenged the Assistant Commissioner’s order setting aside a mutation in their favour and directing entry of the land in the name of Karinaika, and the Deputy Commissioner’s order dismissing their revision.

The petitioners claimed through a re-grant said to have been made to Karinaika in 1959 and subsequent revenue entries in favour of their predecessor.

Respondent No. 5 claimed two acres under a registered sale deed dated 26 May 1956 and relied on an encumbrance certificate showing no registered transaction between 1959 and 2003.

The petitioners had also filed a civil suit seeking a declaration of title and challenging the relevant sale deeds.

Whether the revenue authorities’ orders setting aside the petitioners’ mutation and directing mutation in favour of respondent No. 5 warranted interference under Article 226 of the Constitution

Whether the parties’ competing claims to title and identity of the persons named in the relevant documents could be resolved in writ proceedings, or should be determined in the pending civil suit

Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, which the petitioners invoked, concerns reporting acquisitions of rights to the revenue authorities within a reasonable time; the Court considered but did not accept the petitioners’ reliance on Dharmoji Devendra Kadabi v. Assistant Commissioner, ILR 1998 KAR 1030, and S. Shivanna v. Special Tahsildar, Bangalore North Taluk, (2006) 1 KCCR 652, in the circumstances of this case.

The Court’s reasoning treated the competing claims of title and the disputed identity of the persons involved as matters requiring adjudication by a competent civil court, rather than determination in writ proceedings.

The Court noted that the petitioners relied on the re-grant and subsequent revenue entries, while respondent No. 5 relied on a registered sale deed and an encumbrance certificate showing no registered transaction during the stated period.

The competing claims—including the petitioners’ contention that respondent No. 5’s asserted predecessor was a different person—raised disputed factual questions.

Since those questions were already placed before the civil court in the suit for declaration and challenge to the sale deeds, the Court considered that title should be determined there.

It also found the petitioners’ Section 128 argument and cited precedents inapplicable in light of the encumbrance certificate.

It reserved liberty to the petitioners to seek modification or change of the revenue entries after conclusion of that suit.