Sri Gavisiddappa S/O Yamanoorappa Lyavakki Vs the Deputy Commissioner Koppal

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO-2/ ASSISTENT COMMISSIONER OF KOPPAL IN BEARING NO-RRT:APPEAL-164/2024 DATED 14/11/2024 AT ANNEXURE-E AND; ISSUE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO-1/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF KOPPAL IN BEARING NO-3594 IN RP/0105/2024 DATED 16/09/2025 AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶35

3 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1737 WP No. 100956 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondents No.1 to 5. Notice to respondent 6 to 10 is not ordered as the writ petition is disposed of without adjudicating or affecting the substantive rights of respondents No.6 to 10.

¶41

The petitioners have approached this Court calling in question the orders passed by the respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner and the respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner relating to mutation entry in respect of land bearing Survey No.245/3 of Kinnal village, Koppal Taluk.

¶42

The land in question was subject to a mutation entry during the year 2012-2013 pursuant to a family arrangement/partition. After the lapse of

¶43

4 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1737 WP No. 100956 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

nearly 12 years, respondents No. 6 to 10 filed an appeal before Respondent No. 2 – Assistant Commissioner, along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The respondent No.2Assistant Commissioner by order dated 14.11.2024, condoned the delay and allowed the appeal. The revision preferred by the petitioners before respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner also came to be dismissed on 16.09.2025. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have approached this Court.

¶47

It is not in dispute that the petitioners have already instituted O.S.No.120 of 2024, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Koppal seeking declaration of ownership and consequential relief in respect of the very same property.

¶48

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the mutation entry of the year 2012-2013, was

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1737 WP No. 100956 of 2026

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

challenged after inordinate delay of 12 years, which could not have been condoned in a mechanical manner. The application for condonation of delay ought to have been considered independently and not in a routine fashion while allowing the appeal. The reasons assigned by the private individuals for such an inordinate delay were neither convincing nor properly examined by the Assistant Commissioner. It is contended that the approach of the Assistant Commissioner in condoning the delay and allowing the appeal, has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioners.

¶53

Per contra , learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5-State, submits that the mutation entry is only fiscal entry and do not confer title. It is contended that the petitioners has an efficacious remedy before the Civil Court, which they have already availed by filing OS No.120 of 2024. It is submitted that the question of title

¶54

6 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:1737 WP No. 100956 of 2026

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

and validity of the alleged partition or

¶57

relinquishment, can be effectively adjudicated only by the Civil Court and not by the revenue authorities.

¶58

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

¶59

It is well settled that the mutation entry is only for fiscal purposes and do not either confer or extinguish title. The petitioners have themselves approached the competent Civil Court seeking declaration of ownership and the said suit is pending adjudication.

¶60

As regards to the contention relating to condonation of delay, it is to be noticed that the petitioners had an opportunity to file their objections to the application seeking condonation of delay and the same was considered by the Assistant Commissioner while passing the impugned order. In

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1737 WP No. 100956 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

any event, the correctness or otherwise of the rival claims touching upon title and possession, are matters squarely falls within the domain of Civil Court.

¶65

In such circumstances, the Court is of the considered view that no useful purpose would be served by undertaking a detailed examination of the impugned order of the revenue authority, particularly when the Civil Court is seized of the matter. However, to safeguard the interest of the parties, it is necessary to clarify that the mutation entry and the orders passed by the revenue authorities, shall always remain subject to the final outcome of the civil suit. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:

¶66

ORDER

¶67

i. The writ petition is disposed of .

¶68

8 -

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1737 WP No. 100956 of 2026

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

ii. The mutation entry relating to the subject land shall be subject to the final outcome of OS No.120 of 2024, pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Koppal.

¶72

iii. The Civil Court shall adjudicate the said suit independently on its own merits, without being influenced by any of the observation or order passed by the Revenue Authorities.

¶73

iv. All the contentions are kept open to be agitated before the competent Civil Court.

¶74

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶75

AM/CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri Gavisiddappa S/O Yamanoorappa Lyavakki v. the Deputy Commissioner Koppal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Gavisiddappa S/O Yamanoorappa Lyavakki v. the Deputy Commissioner Koppal

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

Sakkargouda S/O Balanagouda Patil Vs Chief Officer

Shri Channappagowda S/O Naganagowda Gulangoudar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Shri Jyotiba S/O Peeshappa Signolkar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Arvind Bhimbhat Pujar Vs the Union of India

Shri Ramachandra S/O Vithal Pai Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Churachappa S/O. Prachandappa Bennappanavar Vs Hescom