Karnataka High Court
Rehana W/O. Mokashi Khan vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2306
WP No. 107879 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 107879 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
REHANA W/O. MOKASHI KHAN
AGE. 84 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESH I ZIRALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND
CITY SURVEY NORTH ZONE,
BELGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI - 590001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI - 590001.
MANJANNA
E 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
CITY SURVEY, BELAGAVI,
Digitally signed by DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
MANJANNA E
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
5. ABDULKARIM S/O. ABDUL SATTAR BHALDAR
Date: 2026.02.18
10:31:27 +0530 AGE. MAJOR, R/O. CTS NO.5867,
MALMARUTI, MAHANTESH NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI - 590001.
6. SATTEPPA S/O. RAYAPPA MEDAR
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DADDI, TQ. HUKKERI - 591309,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 11.02.2026;
NOTICE TO R6 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2306
WP No. 107879 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 21.07.2016 PASSED IN REV/SR-22/2015-16 BY 2ND
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the order dated 21.07.2016, passed by respondent No.2-Joint Director of Land City Survey North Zone, Belagavi (Joint Director) in R.P.No.REV/SR-22/2015-16 (Annexure-F), whereby, the revision petition filed by the private respondents has been allowed and the earlier order of mutation in favour of the petitioner has been set aside.
Brief facts:
2. The property in question is Plot No.858, bearing CTS No.5868 measuring 30x40 feet situated at Vantmuri Colony, Belagavi. The said plot was originally allotted in favour of Parvayya Kallayya Pujari in the year 1982. The -3- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2306 WP No. 107879 of 2016 HC-KAR petitioner purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 12.02.2013. After purchase, the petitioner found that name of respondent No.4 was wrongly entered in the CTS record. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records in CTS Appeal No.44/2012-13. By order dated 18.11.2013, the Deputy Director allowed the appeal and directed deletion of name of respondent No.4 and mutation of the petitioner's name in the revenue records. Subsequently, respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed a revision petition before the Joint Director in R.P.No.REV/SR-22/2015-16. By the impugned order dated 21.07.2016 (Annexure-F), the Joint Director allowed the revision and set aside the order of the Deputy Director.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order suffers from serious material irregularity and is contrary to Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). It is -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2306 WP No. 107879 of 2016 HC-KAR submitted that respondent No.2 exceeded jurisdiction by examining the validity of the allotment and sale deed, which falls exclusively within the domain of the competent Civil Court. It is submitted that the revenue authorities are bound to effect mutation entry based on a registered sale deed, subject to outcome of the civil proceedings, if any.
4. The impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and without proper appreciation of the title documents. The Joint Director has virtually adjudicated title in summary revision proceedings, which is impermissible in law.
5. The private respondents though have been served with a notice, they have chosen to remain absent.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
7. The scope of mutation proceedings under Sections 128 and 129 of the Act is limited to recording entries based on the acquisition of rights. The petitioner has -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:2306 WP No. 107879 of 2016 HC-KAR produced register sale deed dated 12.02.2013. When the acquisition of right is based on a registered instrument, the revenue authorities are required to effect mutation entries, subject to the result of any civil proceedings. The Joint Director, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, has examined the validity of allotment and title falling from earlier transaction. Such an exercise amounts to adjudication of title.
8. It is well settled that the revenue authorities cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title and the entries in the revenue records, do not confer right or extinguish title. If the respondents dispute the petitioner's title, the proper remedy is to approach the competent Civil Court. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional error and warrants interference. Accordingly, this Court pass the following:
ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. -6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2306 WP No. 107879 of 2016 HC-KAR ii. The order dated 21.07.2016 passed by respondent No.2- Joint Director of Land City Survey North Zone, Belagavi (Annexure-F) is hereby quashed.
iii. The order dated 18.11.2013, passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records (Annexure-B) stands restored.
iv. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude the parties from establishing their title before the competent Civil Court, if so advised in accordance with law and the mutation entries would be subject to the result of any Civil Court proceedings.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA AT Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36