Karnataka High Court
Ramesh Bhimappa Avaradi vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 August, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9999-DB
WA No. 100104 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO. 100104 OF 2025 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. RAMESH BHIMAPPA AVARADI,
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SALAPUR, TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
2. RAVINDRA BHIMAPPA AVARADI,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SALAPUR, TAL. RAMDURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
3. VIJAYKUMAR BHIMAPPA AVARADI,
AGE: 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SALAPUR, TAL. RAMDURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
- APPELLANTS
Digitally signed
by VINAYAKA B V
Location: High
Court of
(BY SRI. VIJAY K. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA R/BY
ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BAILHONGAL, DIST. BELAGAVI-591102.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9999-DB
WA No. 100104 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. THE TAHSILDAR, RAMDURG,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
CHANDARGI, TQ. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591114.
6. BASAPPA IRAPPA VAJRAWAD,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SALAPUR, TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
7. SHIVAPPA IRAPPA VAJRAWAD,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SALAPUR, TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
8. SOMALINGESHWAR IRAPPA VAJRAWAD,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SALAPUR, TAL. RAMDURG, DIST. BELAGAVI-591123.
9. RUKMAVVA W/O. BHIMAPPA AVARADI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. LOKAPUR, TQ: LOKAPUR, DIST. BAGALKOT-587122.
HANUMANTAPPA @ HANAMANT VAJRAWAD,
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
10. ROOPA HANUMANTAPPA @ HANAMANT VAJRAWAD
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SAPTASAGAR,
TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591304.
11. KASHINATH HANUMANTAPPA @ HANAMANT VAJRAWAD,
AGE: 10 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. SAPTASAGAR,
TAL: ATHANI, DIST: BELAGAVI-591304.
12. PAVAN HANUMANTAPPA @ HANAMANT VAJRAWAD
AGE: 8 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. SAPTASAGAR, TAL: ATHANI,
DIST: BELAGAVI-591304.
(AS THE RESPONDENT NOS. 11 & 12 ARE
MINORS, THEY ARE R/BY THEIR NATURA
GAURDIAN MOTHER I.E., RESPONDENT NO.10)
- RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9999-DB
WA No. 100104 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
28.08.2024 PASSED BY LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION
NO.102006/2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION BY
ALLOWING THE INSTANT WRIT APPEAL HEREIN AND ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
The present appeal has been filed by the petitioners
in the writ petition assailing the validity of the order in
W.P. No. 102006/2016. Parties are referred to by their
ranking in the writ proceedings for the purpose of
convenience.
2. The writ petition was filed calling in question the
order passed at Annexure-D, mutation entry at Annexures
A and B. It is to be noticed that the challenge to the
mutation entries was made raising several grounds
including that the sale deed contained interest of a minor
and could not have conveyed the title. The learned Single
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9999-DB
HC-KAR
Judge by a detailed order has disposed of the writ petition
in terms of observation at paragraph No.5 which reads as
follows:
"Suffice it to note that, one Rukmavva wife of Bhimappa
Avaradi - respondent No.9 sold the land i.e., Sy.No.308/2
measuring 10 Acres 07 Guntas of Salapur village in Ramdurg
Taluk of Belagavi District in favor of Erappa Rachappa
Vajrawad, the father of respondents 6, 7 and 8 and accordingly
his name was certified and mutated in M.R.No.2078 on
06.11.1979. After a lapse of almost thirty-five years, the
children of Rukmavva questioned the certification of mutation
entry before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant
Commissioner vide order dated 26.07.2014 allowed the appeal
and set aside the mutation entry. Before the Deputy
Commissioner, one of the contentions raised was that the sale
had affected minor interest. The Deputy Commissioner vide
order dated 17.12.2015 disposed of the revision holding that
the validity of the sale deed may be agitated before the Civil
Court. The conclusion and the finding so arrived at by the
Deputy Commissioner is just and proper. I find no grounds to
interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner and
accordingly, the Writ Petition is rejected."
3. It is to be noticed that the contention of the
petitioner is one that requires adjudication before
appropriate forum and cannot be decided in revenue
proceedings as the mutation entry was affected pursuant
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9999-DB
HC-KAR
to a sale deed. In light of the above, we find no reason to
interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. We
affirm the order of the learned Single Judge while
reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek for substantive
remedy insofar as validity of the sale deed if sought to be
raised, as is permissible in law.
Needless to state that the petitioner upon
approaching the Civil Court and adjudication when made,
the revenue entries made and standing at present, would
be subject to outcome of such adjudication.
Pending applications also stand disposed off in light
of disposal of the main matter.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
BVV /CT-AN
