Petitioner challenged Tahsildar, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner orders mutating the sixth respondent's name in land records pursuant to a registered sale deed. The High Court found no grounds to interfere, noting the mutation was subject to the pending partition suit, and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12639 WP No. 103797 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 103797 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SRI. GIREESH BALAPPA GANGAVATHI, AGE 33 YEARS, OCCP. DRIVER AND AGRICULTURE, R/O SARADAR GALLI, KOPPAL-583 231.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HANUMESH DESAI., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NEELENRA.D.GUNDE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
TQ. AND DIST. DHARWAD-590 008.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12639 WP No. 103797 of 2021
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. KIRTILATA.R.PATIL., HCGP FOR R1-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Hanumesh Desai., counsel on behalf of Sri.Neelendra D.Gunde., for the petitioner and Smt.Kirtilata R.Patil., HCGP for respondents 1 to 4, have appeared in person.
of Certiorari to quash the order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the Tahsildar, Koppal – respondent No.3 in ¸ÀASÉå:PÀA:ºÀPÀÄÌ:95:2019
vide Annexure-B, the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the
Assistant Commissioner, Koppal – respondent No.2 in ¸ÀASÉå:PÀA:DgïDgïn:C¦Ã®Ä:58/2019-20/3306 vide Annexure-C and the order dated 05.08.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Koppal – respondent No.1 in ¥ÀæPÀgÀt
¸ÀASÉå:PÀA/C¦Ã®Ä/37/2020-21 vide Annexure-D.
favor of one Shamamma who is the mother of the fifth respondent. It is alleged that there was an oral partition
between Shamamma and Sharadha. On the strength of the oral partition, Sharadha sold the said land in favor of the sixth respondent under a registered sale deed dated 07.06.2019 for valuable consideration.
As the matter stood thus, the sixth respondent sought to enter her name in the revenue records. The petitioner filed objections. The Tahsildar vide order dated 04.11.2019 ordered to mutate the name of the sixth respondent in the revenue records. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 09.02.2021 confirmed the order passed by the Tahsildar. The order of the Assistant Commissioner was assailed before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 05.08.2021 dismissed the appeal.
Based on the sale deed, the Tahsildar has taken action to mutate the name of the purchaser in the revenue records. The father has not questioned the said entry. The revenue authorities concluded that the said entry is subject to the outcome of the original suit and the same is just and proper.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:12639 WP No. 103797 of 2021
Hence, I find no grounds to interfere with the orders of the revenue authorities. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to
be dismissed.
6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .
Sd/(JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE
MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the revenue authorities' orders mutating the purchaser's name in revenue records based on a registered sale deed should be quashed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. Gireesh Balappa Gangavathi
The Deputy Commissioner, Koppal
The Assistant Commissioner, Koppal
The Tahasildar, Koppal
The Revenue Inspector, Koppal
Smt. Sharadha Chitrashekar Malagannavar
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
