Smt Doddawwa W/O Basayya Hiremath Alias Khanatti Vs the Deputy Commissioner Belagavi

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12121 WP No. 101913 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.101913 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. DODDAWWA W/O. BASAYYA HIREMATH @ KHANATTI, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GUGIKOLL VILLAGE, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307.

¶10

SHRI ANAND S/O. BASAYYA HIREMATH @ KHANATTI, AGE: 35 YEARS,, OCCU: AGRICULTURE, R/O. GUGIKOLL VILLAGE, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591307.

¶11

Digitally signed by ASHPAK KASHIMSA MALAGALADINNI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶12

SMT. NINGAWWA W/O. SANJU MUSLMARI, AGE: 37 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. MADAMAKKANAHAL VILLAGE-591307, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶13

SMT. DUNDAWWA W/O. MAHADEV HIREMATH, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCCU: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. BENACHINAMARADI VILLAGE, TAL. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI.-591307.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. S.R. KAMATE, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BELAGAVI. TAL & DIST. BELAGAVI.-590001.

¶18

2 -

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12121 WP No. 101913 of 2024

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BAILHONAL-591102, DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶22

THE TAHASILDAR GOKAK, NOW MUDALAGI-591312, BELAGAVI DIST.

¶23

SHRI. MALLAYYA SHIVALINGAYYA KHANATTI @ MATHAPATI, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GURLAPUR CROSS,

¶24

TAL. MUDALGAI & DIST. BELAGAVI-591312.

¶25

SMT. GANGAWWA IRAYYA MATHAPATI @KHANATTI, R/O. 65 GURLAPUR CROSS, TAL. MUDALGAI & DIST. BELAGAVI-591312.

¶26

SMT. BASAVARAJ IRAYYA MATHAPATI AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GURLAPUR CROSS, TAL. MUDALGAI & DIST. BELAGAVI-591312

¶27

SMT. SADASHIV IRAYYA MATHAPATI AGE: 38 YEARS OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GURLAPUR CROSS, TAL. MUDALGAI & DIST. BELAGAVI-591312.

¶28

SMT. MAHADEVI BASAYYA HIREMATH @ KHANATTI, AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GURLAPUR CROSS, TAL. MUDALGAI & DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶29

SMT.SHRIDEVI IRAYYA MATHAPATI @ KHANATTI AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GURLAPUR CROSS, TAL. MUDALGAI & DIST. BELAGAVI-591312.

¶30

SHRI MURAGAYYA SHIVAYYA KHANATTI @ MATHAPATI AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GURLAPUR CROSS, TAL. MUDALGAI & DIST. BELAGAVI-591312.

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12121 WP No. 101913 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

SHRI SHANKRAYYA SHIVAYYA KHANATTI @ MATHAPATI AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GURLAPUR CROSS, TAL. MUDALGAI & DIST. BELAGAVI-591312.

¶35

SHRI DUNDAYYA SHIVAYYA KHANATTI @ MATHAPATI AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GURLAPUR CROSS, TAL. MUDALGAI & DIST. BELAGAVI-591312.

¶36

SHRI SHRISHAIL SHIVAYYA KHANATTI @ MATHAPATI AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GURLAPUR CROSS, TAL. GOKAK & DIST. BELAGAVI-591312.

¶37

…RESPONDENT

¶38

(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; NOTICE TO R4 TO R13 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶39

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO; A. WRIT OF CERTIORARI BE PASSED BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN RA. NO.249/2017 DATED 02.04.2019 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT AND THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN RB/RTA/12/2019-20 DATED 17.02.2022 IN RB/MISC/AP-02/2022-23 DATED 03.08.2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-‘E’, ‘F’ AND ‘G’ RESPECTIVELY AND CONSEQUENTLY SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE MUTATION ENTRY NO.1550 DATED 25/06/1998 IN RESPECT OF RS.NO.556/1A+2B+2K+D+2E OF THE MuDALAGI VILLAGE AS PER ANNEXURE-C, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; B. PASS ANY ORDER OR ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COST OF THE PRESENT PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶40

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶41

4 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12121 WP No. 101913 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

ORAL ORDER

¶45

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶46

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 3. Notice to respondents No.4 to 13 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed.

¶47

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶48

a. A writ of certiorari be passed by quashing the impugned orders passed by the Respondent No.2 in RA. No.249/2017 dated 02.04.2019 passed by the 2^nd Respondent and the order passed by respondent no.1 in RB/RTA/12/2019-20 dated 17.02.2022 in RB/MISC/AP-02/2022-23 dated 03.08.2023 as per Annexure-‘E’, ‘F’ and ‘G’ respectively and consequently seeking to set aside the Mutation Entry No.1550 dated 25/06/1998 in respect of RS.No. 556/1A+2B+2K+D+2E of the Mudalagi Village as per Annexure-C, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶49

b. Pass any order or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of the present petitioner, in the interest of justice.

¶50

5 -

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC-D:12121 WP No. 101913 of 2024

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

On the basis of an alleged relinquishment deed said to

¶54

have been executed by the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 to 4, mutation entries were carried out in the year 1998, alleging that the said relinquishment deed is a fabricated forged document. The petitioners challenged the said mutational entries in the year 2017 before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated 02.04.2019, dismissed the claim on the ground that there is a unexplained delay of 19 years. A challenge having been made before the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2000. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 17.02.2022, dismissed the said challenge. The review petition having been filed before the Deputy Commissioner was dismissed on 03.08.2023. It is challenging all the above orders

¶55

that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶56

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:12121 WP No. 101913 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, I

¶59

do not find any infirmity in the said orders firstly for the reason that the petitioners’ father during his lifetime did not challenge the entries which had been made; secondly, the petitioners have challenged the said entries after a long lapse of 19 years, and more importantly, the challenge is on the basis of a relinquishment deed being a fabricated document, which aspect cannot be adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner. If at all, the petitioners were required to obtain necessary declaratory relief from an appropriate forum as regards the validity or otherwise of the relinquishment deed. Without such a declaration being obtained, the application filed by the petitioners before the revenue authorities for a change in the mutation entries on the ground that the mutation entries have been made on the basis of a forged or fabricated document is not permissible.

¶60