Allowed¶46

Malleshappa S/O. Basappa Holikatti, v. Kottreshappa S/O. Parvatapa Bukkashatti

Karnataka HC5 Mar 2025WP/67434/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad; WP 67434/2011; certiorari; Articles 226 & 227; revenue mutation; M.E.No.1588; Record of Rights deletion; belated appeal after 30 years; mere revenue entry creates no title; declaration of title before Civil Court; Assistant Commissioner R.T.S/A.P/120/2006-07 Annexure-F; Deputy Commissioner R.T.S/RA/CR-73/08-09 Annexure-G; Sy.No.274 Kotihal village; Ranebennur; Haveri; M.G. Uma J.; writ allowed; Annexures F and G quashed; M.E.No.1588 restored.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 07.07.2008 in R.T.S/A.P/120/2006-07 (Annexure-F) and the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 22.09.2011 in No.R.T.S/RA/CR73/08-09 (Annexure-G) are quashed; consequently M.E.No.1588 is restored. ¶46

Malleshappa S/O. Basappa Holikatti, Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶46

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ of certiorari should issue quashing the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 22.09.2011 (Annexure-G) and the Assistant Commissioner's order dated 07.07.2008 (Annexure-F), whereby the deletion of Shankaravva's name effected by M.E.No.1588 was reversed. +1 more

¶29

Court's answer

Respondent No.1, claiming his right under Shankaravva, must establish his right over the property in accordance with law before the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction; accordingly the impugned orders (Annexures F and G) are liable to be quashed.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

A mere entry in the revenue records does not create any right; although it cannot be said that respondent No.1 has no right whatsoever over the property, his claimed right derives from a revenue entry alone and does not confer title.

¶42

Key takeaways

When respondent No.1's right is seriously disputed by the petitioners and M.E.No.1588, effected on 21.10.1977, remained in force for more than 48 years, it is not fair at this stage to delete that entry by directing entry of the name of Shankaravva, who is no more.ratio¶42

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench — WP No. 67434 of 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR), decided 05.03.2025 by M.G. Uma, J. — Certiorari under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Mutation entry M.E.No.1588, effected on 21.10.1977, had deleted the name of Shankaravva from the revenue records of land in Sy.No.274, Kotihal village; after a lapse of about 30 years, respondent No.1 (who claims to be her son) appealed, and the Assistant Commissioner set the mutation aside (order dt. 07.07.2008, Annexure-F), confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner (order dt. 22.09.2011, Annexure-G), the latter specifying that declaration of title lies before the Civil Court. Held: a mere entry in the revenue records creates no right; with M.E.No.1588 in force for over 48 years and respondent No.1's right seriously disputed by the petitioners, it was not fair to delete that entry; respondent No.1, claiming under Shankaravva, must establish his title before the competent Civil Court. Both impugned orders were quashed and M.E.No.1588 was restored.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4306 WP No. 67434 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 67434 OF 2011 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MALLESHAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HOLIKATTI, AGE: 55 YEARS,

¶8

SHIDDALINGAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HOLIKATTI, AGE: 53 YEARS,

¶9

REVANEPPA S/O. BASAPPA HOLIKATTI, AGE: 51 YEARS,

¶10

KOTTARESHAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HOLIKATTI, AGE: 48 YEARS,

¶11

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

¶12

SHANMUKHAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HOLIKATTI, AGE: 46 YEARS,

¶13

KENCHAPPA S/O. BASAPPA HOLIKATTI,

¶14

ALL PETITIONERS ARE MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTIHAL, TQ:RANNEBENNURE, DIST: HAVERI.

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. N. P. VIVEKMEHTA, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4306 WP No. 67434 of 2011

¶18

AND:

¶19

KOTTRESHAPPA S/O. PARVATAPA BUKKASHATTI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. KOTIHAL, TQ: RANEBENNUR, DIST: HAVERI.

¶20

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI, HAVERI.

¶21

THE ASSISTANCE COMMISSIONER RANEBENNUR, RANEBENNUR,DIST: HAVERI.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. N.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & R3 ARE SERVED)

¶24

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE ORDER OF 2^ND RESPONDENT DATED 22/09/2011 PASSED IN R.T.S./RA/CR-73/-08-09 AT ANNEXURE-G & ORDER OF 3^RD RESPONDENT DATED 07.07.2008 PASSED IN R.T.S./A.P/ 120/2006-07, ANNEXURE-F.

¶26

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

¶27

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

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioners are seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated 22.09.2011 passed by respondent No.2 in R.T.S/RA/CR-73/08-09 produced as

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4306 WP No. 67434 of 2011

¶31

per Annexure-G and the order dated 07.07.2008 passed by respondent No.3 in R.T.S/A.P/120/2006-07 produced as per Annexure-F.

¶32

Heard Sri. N.P.Vivekmehta, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. N.V.Yaji, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.2 and 3 are served but have remained unrepresented. Perused the materials on record.

¶33

It is the contention of the petitioners that, initially one Kenchappagouda was the owner of 1.05 acres of land in Sy.No.274 of Kotihal village. Said Kenchappagouda had two sons namely, Ankalappagouda and Adiveppagouda. There was a partition between the brothers as found in Annexure-A, in the year 1957. Later, the brothers have relinquished their right in favour of their sister-Nagavva during 1977. Accordingly, the name of Nagavva was mutated in the revenue records. After her death, the name of her husband came to be entered in the revenue records.

¶34

The petitioners claim that they are the sons of Nagavva.

¶35

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4306 WP No. 67434 of 2011

¶36

Even though M.E.No.1588 was effected on 21.10.1977, it was only during 2006-07 i.e. after lapse of 30 years, respondent No.1 filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, contending that at some remote point of time, the name of his mother Shankaravva was found in the revenue records, and since the same was deleted long back, it has to be restored. The appeal was entertained by the Assistant Commissioner by passing the impugned order produced as per Annexure-F and the same was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner by passing the order produced as per Annexure-G. The same are called in question before this Court.

¶37

It is the contention of respondent No.1, that he is the son of Shankaravva whose name had admittedly appeared in the revenue records. But, he was not in a position to say as to how Shankaravva derived title over any portion of the disputed land. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that respondent No.1 is nowhere related to the petitioners. However, the fact

¶38

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4306 WP No. 67434 of 2011

¶39

remains that at one point of time the name of Shankaravva was found in the Record of Rights. The same was deleted by effecting M.E.No.1588 way back in the year 1977. Since then neither the name of Shankaravva nor the name of respondent No.1 appeared in the revenue records. For these long years, neither Shankaravva nor respondent No.1 have challenged the said mutation entry. It is stated that till this date in the revenue records, the names of the petitioners are reflected.

¶40

In the impugned order Annexure-G passed by the Deputy Commissioner, even though he confirms the order of the Assistant Commissioner setting aside M.E.No.1588, he specifies that the declaration of title in respect of the landed property, is to be sought before the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction. If at all, respondent No.1 is aggrieved by deletion of the name of Shankaravva who claims to be his mother, he was at liberty to approach the Civil Court seeking declaration of his title, in accordance with law. Instead, he preferred an appeal before the

¶41

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4306 WP No. 67434 of 2011

¶42

Assistant Commissioner belatedly, which was entertained by him. Even though the contention of respondent No.1 cannot be denied by stating that he has no right whatsoever over the property, mere entry in the revenue records will not create any right. When the right of respondent No.1 is seriously disputed by the petitioners, when M.E.No.1588 was effected on 21.10.1977 and was in force for all these years i.e. for more than 48 years, it is not fair at this stage to delete the said entry by directing to enter the name of Shankaravva who is no more. When respondent No.1 claims his right under Shankaravva, it is for him to establish his right over the property in accordance with law before the Civil Court having competent jurisdiction. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders produced as per Annexures F and G are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed .

¶45

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:4306 WP No. 67434 of 2011

¶46

(ii) The impugned order dated 07.07.2008 passed by respondent No.3 in R.T.S/A.P/120/2006-07 as per Annexure-F and order dated 22.09.2011 passed by respondent No.2 in No.R.T.S/RA/CR73/08-09 as per Annexure-G, are hereby quashed. Consequently M.E.No.1588 is restored.

¶47

Sd/(M.G.UMA) JUDGE

¶48

MKM

¶49

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14

Malleshappa S/O. Basappa Holikatti, v. Kottreshappa S/O. Parvatapa Bukkashatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Malleshappa S/O. Basappa Holikatti, v. Kottreshappa S/O. Parvatapa Bukkashatti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hugar Shanthamma W/O Late Hugar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Smt. Indiraje W/O Bhairava Singh Ghorpade Vs the Joint Director of Land Records

Gangadharayya S/O Mahantlingayya Hireamth Aliyas Kustagi Vs the Deputy Commisioner

Vasant Bindu Desai Vs Land Tribunal, Hubli

Sri. Vidhyadhar Bandu Dhanawade, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Jagannath Vishnu Patil S/O Sri. Vishnu Patil, Vs the Deputy Commissioner