Dismissed¶60

Shri Imamhusain S/O Imamsab Attar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Feb 2026WP/101202/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Mutation entries confer no title, fiscal purpose; Article 227 supervisory jurisdiction - no review of interlocutory orders of statutory forums absent abuse of process or gross injustice; interim stay in statutory revenue appeal left undisturbed. R.A.No.313/2023, Assistant Commissioner Bailhongal; R.S.No.221/1 (earlier 221/1B), Belavadi village, Bailhongal, Belagavi; mutation order dated 26.07.2023; Annexure-V dated 2/11/2023; certiorari; KLR-RES; writ petition dismissed; status quo; early disposal.

What did the court decide?

Mutation entries do not confer or extinguish title and are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes. ¶54

Shri Imamhusain S/O Imamsab Attar Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶60

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim order passed in R.A.No.313 of 2023 calls for any interference by this Court.

¶53

Court's answer

Mutation entries do not confer or extinguish title and are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

While entertaining the statutory appeal, the Appellate Authority granted the interim order to maintain status quo till final adjudication; interference at this stage would amount to pre-empting the statutory proceedings.

¶55

Key takeaways

No material was placed to demonstrate that the Authority lacked jurisdiction or that the order suffers from patent illegality or perversity.ratio¶55
Exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court does not act as an Appellate Authority over interlocutory orders passed by a statutory forum unless there is a clear case of abuse of process or gross injustice, which is absent in the present case.ratio¶59
The petitioners are at liberty to place all the materials before the Appellate Authority and seek early disposal of the appeal.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench (K.S. Hemalekha, J.) - Writ Petition No. 101202 of 2024 (KLR-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying for certiorari to quash the proceedings in R.A.No.313/2023 pending before respondent No.5-Assistant Commissioner (Annexure-V, dated 2/11/2023) and the interim stay therein of the mutation and rectification entries concerning R.S.No.221/1 (earlier 221/1B), Belavadi village, Bailhongal Taluka, Belagavi District, and for a direction to respondent No.6 to execute a rectification deed as per actual possession. Held: mutation entries do not confer or extinguish title and are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes; the Appellate Authority granted the interim order to maintain status quo till final adjudication, and interference would pre-empt the statutory proceedings; no material demonstrated want of jurisdiction, patent illegality or perversity; while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the Court does not act as an Appellate Authority over interlocutory orders of statutory forums absent clear abuse of process or gross injustice; petitioners at liberty to place all materials before the Appellate Authority and seek early disposal of the appeal. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1711 WP No. 101202 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.101202 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SHRI. IMAMHUSAIN S/O. IMAMSAB ATTAR AGE: 70 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BELAVADI VILLAGE, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.

¶11

SHRI. CHANDRASHEKHAR S/O. BASAPPA GANACHARI,

¶12

AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND PVT. SERVICE, R/O. CHANNAMKMA SAMADI ROAD, BAILHONGAL, DIST: HAVERI.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. PRASHANTH V.MOGALI, ADVOCATE)

¶15

Digitally signed byMANJANNA E Location: HIGH COURT MANJANNAE OFKARNATAKADHARWADBENCH Date:2026.02.11 14:40:01 +0530

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S BUILDING, BANGALURU-560001.

¶18

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF BELAGAVI DIST: BELAGAVI-590009.

¶19

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS OF BELAGAVI-590009.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1711 WP No. 101202 of 2024

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

LAND RECORDS, BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.

¶25

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BAILHONGAL, TQ: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.

¶26

THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER TALUK PANCHAYAT BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.

¶27

THE TAHASILDAR BAILHONGAL

¶28

TAL: BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.

¶29

THE REVENUE INSPECTOR BAILHONGAL DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.

¶30

THE C.E.O ZILLA PANCHAYAT BELAGAVI DIST: BELAGAVI-591102.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R5, R7 & R8 SRI. V.SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R9)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN R.A.NO.313/2023 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT NO.5 VIDE ANNEXURE-V, DATED 2/11/2023 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.6 TO EXECUTE THE RECTIFICATION DEED AS PER THE ACTUAL POSSESSION HELD BY THE PETITIONERS; AND ETC.

¶34

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1711 WP No. 101202 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

The petitioners have approached this Court calling in question the proceedings initiated in RA No.313 of 2023, on the file of respondent No.5-Assistant Commissioner (for short ‘Appellate Authority’) and the interim order passed therein by the competent Revenue Appellate Authority, whereby an interim stay has been granted in respect of the mutation and rectification of the record of rights relating to land bearing R.S.No.221/1 (earlier 221/1B) of Belavadi village of Bailahongal Taluka, Belagavi District.

¶41

The petitioners claim ownership and possession over agricultural land in R.S.No.221/1. Portions of the said land were earlier alienated through registered sale deed, including a sale in favour of respondent No.6. Subsequently, a dispute arose with regard to boundaries and extent, leading to execution of rectification. Upon complaint and representation, the Revenue Authorities conducted survey, Phodi and spot inspection and on basis of the official records

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1711 WP No. 101202 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

and physical verification, rectified the mutation entry and passed an mutation order dated 26.07.2023 in favour of petitioner No.1. Aggrieved by the said mutation, respondent No.3 preferred RA No.313 of 2023, before the Appellate Authority and obtained an interim order staying further operation of the mutation entries. Questioning the initiation of the Appeal as well as the grant of interim stay, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the mutation and the rectification were carried out strictly on basis of the survey, Phodi and actual possession, after due verification by the competent authority. The respondent No.6 having himself sought rectification earlier, cannot turn around and challenge the same. The Appellate Authority has granted an interim stay mechanically without considering the material records and official reports. It is submitted that the continuation of interim order seriously prejudices the petitioner, who is in lawful possession.

¶47

¶48

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1711 WP No. 101202 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

Per contra , the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the Appeal is a statutory remedy and has been rightly entertained. The interim order is an arrangement to protect the subject matter pending adjudication of the Appeal. No jurisdictional error or perversity is shown warranting interference.

¶51

This Court has carefully considered the rival

¶52

submission and perused the material on record.

¶53

The core question is, ‘whether the interim order passed in RA No.313 of 2023 calls for any interference?’

¶54

It is well settled that mutation entries, do not confer on extinguish title and are maintained primarily for fiscal purposes. The Appellate Authority while entertaining

¶55

the statutory Appeal, has granted an interim order to maintain status quo till final adjudication. The interference at this stage, would amount to pre-empting the statutory proceedings. No material is placed to demonstrate that the Authority lacked jurisdiction or that the order suffers from

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC-D:1711 WP No. 101202 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

patent illegality or perversity. This Court, while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, does not act as an Appellate Authority over the interlocutory orders passed by the statutory forum, unless there is a clear case of abuse of process or gross injustice, which is absent in the present case. The petitioners are at liberty to place all the materials before the Appellate Authority and seek early disposal of the Appeal.

¶60

For the foregoing reasons, this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the impugned order passed in RA No.313 of 2023. Accordingly, this Court passed the following;

¶61

ORDER

¶62

The writ petition is hereby dismissed .

¶63

Sd/JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA

¶64

AM/Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Shri Imamhusain S/O Imamsab Attar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Imamhusain S/O Imamsab Attar v. the State of Karnataka

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

Shri C .N Barker Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankar Bhimagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Noorahmed S/O Goususab Alias Mohammed Gouse Alias Babusab Dhotegar Vs the State of Karnataka

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