Dismissed¶36

Kottur Swami Math v. Ravimurthy S/O Rammurthy

Karnataka HC11 Mar 2025WP/60864/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Land records mutation dispute; writ of certiorari and mandamus refused under Articles 226 & 227, Constitution of India; KLR-RES classification; record of rights; registered Sale Deed dated 24.09.1964 versus gift of 4.15 acres Sy.No.318/3 Bellary to Kottur Swami Math by Hireramappa Naik; deceased respondent No.1 Ravimurthy; Smt. V. Kusuma; JDLR Belgaum No.REV.SR.10/2009-2010 dt 18.03.2010; DDLR Bellary Appeal No.36/2002-2003 dt 12.06.2007; civil court declaration of title as proper remedy; petition dismissed on 11 March 2025; Hon'ble Mrs Justice M.G. Uma; Karnataka HC Dharwad; NC 2025:KHC-D:4635.

What did the court decide?

Since the DDLR and JDLR passed the impugned order based on the registered Sale Deed, said to have been executed in favour of deceased respondent No.1, the same cannot be found fault with. ¶33

Kottur Swami Math Vs Ravimurthy S/O Rammurthy — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue a writ of certiorari quashing the JDLR Belgaum order dated 18.03.2010 (Annexure-A) and the DDLR Bellary order dated 12.06.2007 (Annexure-B), and a writ of mandamus directing re-entry of the petitioner's name in the record of rights. +1 more

¶26

Court's answer

Since the DDLR and JDLR passed the impugned order based on the registered Sale Deed, said to have been executed in favour of deceased respondent No.1, the same cannot be found fault with.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

Where the petitioner's contention is that the registered Sale Deed itself is not valid or not binding on it, the petitioner is required to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration of its title; such a challenge cannot be entertained in this writ petition.

¶34

Key takeaways

As the orders impugned were passed based on the registered Sale Deed, there was no reason to entertain the petition; hence the petition was liable to be dismissed.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench), W.P. No. 60864 of 2011 (KLR-RES) — Kottur Swami Math v. Ravimurthy and others: The Mutt petitioner sought certiorari against the order dated 18.03.2010 of the Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum (No.REV.SR.10/2009-2010, Annexure-A) and the order dated 12.06.2007 of the Deputy Director of Land Records, Bellary (Appeal No.36/2002-2003, Annexure-B), which recorded respondent No.1 as purchaser of 4.15 acres in Sy.No.318/3, Bellary under a registered Sale Deed dated 24.09.1964 purportedly executed by the then Mathadipati, deleting the Mutt's name from the record of rights, and sought mandamus for restoration of its name. Neither the Gift Deed nor the Sale Deed was produced before the Court. Held (Justice M.G. Uma, 11.03.2025): orders passed by the DDLR and JDLR on the basis of a registered Sale Deed cannot be found fault with; a petitioner asserting that the Sale Deed is not valid or not binding must seek declaration of title from the Civil Court; petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4635 WP No. 60864 of 2011

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 60864 OF 2011 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

KOTTUR SWAMI MATH BY ITS PEETHADHIPATI, SHRI JAGDGURU SANGANBASAVESHWAR SWAMIGALU KOTTUR SWAMI MATH, BELLARY, DIST-BELLARY.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. NANDINI SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. B. V. SOMAPUR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

RAVIMURTHY S/O. RAMMURTHY AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NOT KNOWN,

¶14

SMT. V. KUSUMA W/O. SATYANARAN, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,

¶15

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD

¶16

BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF OPPOSITE HANUMAN TEMPLE REDDY COMPOUND, KOUL BAZAAR, BANDIHATTI ROAD, BELGAUM.

¶17

JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BELGAUM.

¶18

DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BELLARY.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SRINAND A. PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R3 & R4)

¶21

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4635 WP No. 60864 of 2011

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS, BELGAUM IN NO.REV.SR.10/2009-2010 DATED 18/03/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.4 DEPUTY DIRECT OF LAND RECORDS, BELLARY IN APPEAL NO.36/2002-2003 DATED 12/06/2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-“B” AND ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING TO RESPONDENTS 3 & 4 TO ENTER THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER IN THE RECORDS OF THE SUIT PROPERTY IN CASE IF PETITIONER'S NAME IS DELETED.

¶23

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

The petitioner has approached this Court, seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the impugned order dated 18.03.2010 passed by respondent No.3the Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum, produced as per Annexure-A, and the order dated 12.06.2007 passed by respondent No.4-the Deputy Director of Land Records, produced as per Annexure-B and, to issue writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to enter the name of the petitioner in the record of rights, in respect of the disputed land.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4635 WP No. 60864 of 2011

¶28

Heard Smt.Nandini Somapur, learned counsel for Sri.B.V.Somapur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Srinand A. Pachchapure, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Perused the materials on record.

¶29

It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is the Mutt represented by its Mathadipati. 4.15 acres of land in Sy.No.318/3 situated at Bellary was gifted in favour of mutt by its original owner by name Hireramappa Naik of Bellary. As per the Gift Deed, the Mutt came into possession of the property and it was enjoying the property. Respondent No.2 claims that he purchased the said property from the then Mathadipati of the Mutt under the registered Sale Deed dated 24.09.1964. However, neither copy of the Gift Deed nor copy of the Sale Deed are produced before this Court.

¶30

Now it is the concern of the petitioner that respondent Nos.3 and 4 have passed an order, directing to enter the name of respondent No.1 as being the purchaser of the property under the registered Sale Deed by deleting the name of the

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC-D:4635 WP No. 60864 of 2011

¶33

petitioner. When the DDLR and JDLR have passed the impugned order based on the registered Sale Deed said to have been executed in favour of deceased respondent No.1, the same cannot be found fault with.

¶34

Even though it is the contention of the petitioner that the land in question was never sold in favour of respondent No.2 from the then Mathadipati of the Mutt, respondent No.2 is claiming the right under the registered Sale Deed. When it is the contention of the petitioner that the registered Sale Deed itself is not valid or not binding on the petitioner, he is required to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration of his title. When the orders impugned are passed based on the registered Sale Deed, I do not find any reason to entertain the petition. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following.

¶35

ORDER

¶36

The petition is dismissed .

¶37

Sd/(M.G.UMA) JUDGE

¶38

MKM CT:ANB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 11

Kottur Swami Math v. Ravimurthy S/O Rammurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kottur Swami Math v. Ravimurthy S/O Rammurthy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jotiba Omanna Jadhav Vs the State of Karnataka

Sabirabi W/O. Hazarathsab Attar Vs the Special Deputy Commissioner

Sadashiv S/O. Nagappa Huranagi Vs the Tahasildar

Maha Saraswathi Vidhyapeeth Vs the State of Karnataka

The Sar Desai Vs the Principal Secretary

K Parameshwarappa S/O Mallanna Vs Deputy Commissioner