Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nagubai W/O Tukaram Kalal (Sic ... vs Abdulgafar S/O Babusab Mittibhal on 4 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB
WA No. 100298 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.100298 OF 2024 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAGUBAI W/O. TUKARAM KALAL (SIC KALAL)
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
RESIDING AT RAITAR ONI, GURUWAR PETH,
CHENNAMMA KITTUR, KITTUR TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002.
2. DEEPAK S/O. TUKARAM KALAL (SIC KALAL)
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT RAITAR ONI, GURUWAR PETH,
CHENNAMMA KITTUR, KITTUR TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002.
Digitally signed 3. MANJUNATH S/O. TUKARAM KALAL (SIC KALAL)
by YASHAVANT AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
NARAYANKAR
RESIDING AT RAITAR ONI, GURUWAR PETH,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF CHENNAMMA KITTUR, KITTUR TALUK,
KARNATAKA BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002.
4. SANTOSH S/O. TUKARAM KALAL (SIC KALAL)
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT RAITAR ONI, GURUWAR PETH,
CHENNAMMA KITTUR, KITTUR TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002.
5. RAJ0ENDRA S/O. TUKARAM KALA (SIC KALAL)
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT RAITAR ONI, GURUWAR PETH,
CHENNAMMA KITTUR, KITTUR TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB
WA No. 100298 of 2024
HC-KAR
6. VITHAN S/O. TUKARAM KALA (SIC KALAL)
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
RESIDING AT RAITAR ONI, GURUWAR PETH,
CHENNAMMA KITTUR, KITTUR TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002.
- APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B.HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. ABDULGAFAR S/O. BABUSAB MITTIBHAI,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC. PENSIONER,
RESIDING AT SOMAWAR PETH, KITTUR
NOW RESIDING AT BOMMAPUR CHOWK ONI,
HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-590002.
2. SUBHANI S/O. BABUSAB MITTIBHAI,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
RESIDING AT SOMAWAR PETH, KITTUR
NOW RESIDING AT BOMMAPUR CHOWK ONI,
HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-590002.
3. RAMEEZA W/O. ABDUL MITTIBHAI,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
RESIDING AT SOMAWAR PETH, KITTUR
NOW RESIDING AT BOMMAPUR CHOWK ONI,
HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-590002.
4. IRSHADAHAMAD S/O. BABUSAB MITTIBHAI,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
RESIDING AT SOMAWAR PETH, KITTUR
NOW RESIDING AT BOMMAPUR CHOWK ONI,
HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-590002.
PETITIONER 1 TO 4 REPRESENTED BY THEIR
POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
MOHAMMADRAFIQ S/O. BABUSAB DASTIKOPPA,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC. CONTRACTOR,
RESIDING AT JAMIA MASID ONI,
SOMAWAR PETH, KITTUR, BAILHONGAL TALUK,
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB
WA No. 100298 of 2024
HC-KAR
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
PANCHAYAT RAJ DEPARTMENT,
VIDHAN SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001.
6. THE PRESIDENT,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT
COURT COMPOUND
BELAGAVI-590002.
7. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
TALUK PANCHAYAT,
BAILHONGAL
BELAGAVI-590002.
8. THE CHIEF OFFICER,
TOWN PANCHAYAT,
CHANNAMMA KITTUR
(EARLIER KITTUR GRAM PANCHAYAT)
BAILHONGAL TALUK
BELAGAVI DISTRICT-590002.
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHILLEDAR, ADVOCATE AND
SRI. SANTOSH B.RAWOOT, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R5;
SRI. V. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7;
NOTICE TO R8 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 02-01-2024 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
WP NO.111438/2017 (LB-RES).
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB
WA No. 100298 of 2024
HC-KAR
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
For the reasons stated in the application - I.A.
No.1/2024, the same is allowed. The delay of 150 days in
filing the appeal is condoned.
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning
an order dated 02.01.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WP NO.111438/2017 (LB-RES) captioned 'Abdul
Gafar and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others'. The
said writ petition was filed by the respondents - Abdul
Gafar and others inter alia impugning the order dated
22.08.2015 passed by the President, Zilla Panchayat,
Belagavi as well as the order dated 01.09.2014 passed by
the Executive Officer of Taluka Panchayat, Bailhongal,
Belagavi, challenging certain entries made in the land
records.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB
HC-KAR
2. It is the case of the writ petitioners that certain open
space measuring 65 x 130 sq.ft. consisting of a house and
backyard was sold to Shri Tukaram, who has since
expired. Shri Tukaram had filed a suit for specific
performance being O.S. No. 2/1991 which was decreed.
The area was demarcated and a sale deed was executed in
favour of Shri Tukaram. Pursuant thereto, the name of
Shri Tukaram was entered into the property register of
Kittur Gram Panchayat as property No. 1206. It is stated
that since there were two properties which were assigned
the same number, the property conveyed in terms of the
sale deed in favour of Shri Tukaram was assigned No.
1206-B by a separate resolution.
3. The case of the writ petitioners is that part of the
property was retained in their family and was not the
subject matter of sale of conveyance. The remaining
property was allotted No. 1206-A by Kittur Gram
Panchayat. The said resolution assigning a separate
property number to the property claimed by the writ
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB
HC-KAR
petitioners, was challenged by Shri Tukaram. However,
this challenge was dismissed by an order dated
01.09.2014. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent had
appealed the said order before the Executive Officer. The
respondent had prevailed and the order issued earlier was
cancelled.
4. The controversy, essentially, relates to whether any
property had remained with the writ petitioners (or their
family) after the suit for specific performance [O.S.
No.2/1991] had been decreed in favour of Shri Tukaram.
Admittedly, the sale deed executed in favour of Shri
Tukaram does not cover the entire properties held by the
writ petitioners or their family. However, case of the
appellants (legal heirs of Shri Tukaram who are claiming
through and under him) is that a mistake has crept in the
sale deed, which was executed in the proceedings initiated
for enforcement of the decree of specific performance
passed in O.S. No. 2/1991.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB
HC-KAR
5. The appellants claim that although the sale of entire
property, described in G.P. No. 1206, was specifically
decreed in favour of Shri Tukaram, the sale deed did not
cover the entire property on account of an error that had
crept in at the time of execution of the sale deed.
6. The appellants state that they have already initiated
separate proceedings for redressal of their grievance in
O.S. No. 183/2025, which is pending before the Civil
Judge, Kittur.
7. The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that
the present appeal be disposed of with a direction that the
impugned order and the order passed in the present
proceedings would not come in the way of the appellants if
in the event of them prevailing in the said suit
[O.S.No.183/2025]. In other words, if the appellants
prevail in securing an order for rectification of the sale
deed to include the subject property, the land records will
be modified to reflect the same.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9691-DB
HC-KAR
8. In view of the above, no further orders are required
to be passed in the present appeal. The appeal is,
accordingly, disposed of.
Pending applications are also disposed of.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
BVV
