Karnataka High Court
Sadashiv S/O Siddappa Kurbar vs Smt Renuka W/O Gajanan Naik on 10 July, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568
WP No. 104417 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 104417 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SADASHIV S/O. SIDDAPPA KURUBAR,
AGE: 62 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADAVPUR, VADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590005.
2. PARASHURAM S/O. SIDDAPPA KURUBAR,
AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MADAVPUR, VADAGAON, BELAGAVI-590005.
3. RENUKA SHIVALING EGGENNAVAR,
AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. AT POST HULLOLI,
HUKKERI, BELAGAVI-591305.
4. KALPANA BHARATESH MARENNAVAR,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O PATIL GALLI, MACCHE,
TQ: AND DIST: BELAGAVI-590014.
5. SAVITRI W/O. RAVI KURUBAR,
VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI M
KANKUPPI
R/O. SANIKOPPA, TQ: BAILHONGAL,
BELAGAVI-591125.
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.07.16 14:35:16
+0530
6. SHRI BASAVARAJ GUNDU KURUBAR,
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. 141, LAXMI GALLI,
OLD BELAGAVI (JHUNE BELAGAVI),
BELAGAVI-590005.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHREEVATSA S. HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT. RENUKA W/O. GAJANAN NAIK,
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568
WP No. 104417 of 2025
HC-KAR
R/O. 4TH CROSS, BHAGYANAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590006.
2. SHRI RISHIKESH GAJANAN NAIK,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O. 4TH CROSS, BHAGYANAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590006.
3. SMT. POOJA GAJANAN NAIK,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. 4TH CROSS, BHAGYANAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590006.
4. SMT. PRIYANKA GAJANAN NAIK,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. 4TH CROSS, BHAGYANAGAR,
BELAGAVI-590006.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI,
COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590001.
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BELAGAVI,
COURT COMPOUND, BELAGAVI-590001.
7. THE TEHSILDAR, BELAGAVI,
RISALDAR GALLI, BELAGAVI-590001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. M.M. KHANNUR, AGA FOR R5-R7;
SRI. VITTHAL S. TELI, ADVOCATE FOR R1-R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
(a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 27.05.2025 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.5 IN RB/RTA/237/2024-25 CONFIRMING THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6 IN R.A. NO.74/2024
DATED 22/11/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND A1.
(b) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE
RESPONDENTS NO.5 TO 7 TO ENTER THE DETAILS OF THE
INTERIM PROTECTION EXTENDED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN RFA NO.100263/20 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568
WP No. 104417 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
1. The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders passed
by the 5th respondent/Tahasildar confirming the order passed
by the 6th respondent-Assistant Commissioner in R.A.
No.74/2024 to enter the names of respondent Nos.1 to 4 as per
the registered sale deed dated 19.11.2013.
2. According to the petitioners, the agricultural land
bearing R.S. No.56/*/1 measuring 3 acres situated at
Madhavpur, Vadagaon, Belagavi, belong to their ancestors and
they are the legal heirs of Siddappa Kurubar. The said land
was purchased through a registered sale deed on 13.10.1955
and accordingly the original owner's name was mutated in the
revenue records. It is the further case of the petitioners that
after the death of the original owner Siddappa Kurubar, his
legal heirs namely Mayawwa, Gundu, Sadashiv and Parashuram
came to be mutated as per the Mutation Entry No.2845 dated
20.02.1999 and after the death of his wife Mayawwa Kurubar,
names of Gundu Kurbar and petitioner Nos.1 and 2 continued
in the Mutation Entry No.3035. It is submitted that this being
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568
HC-KAR
the case and the names of the petitioners being reflected along
with the name of Gundu Kurubar, an appeal came to be filed
before the 6th respondent which came to be allowed and the
order was not implemented. Thereafter, the said order dated
01.07.2014 remained unchallenged till date. It is stated further
that respondent Nos.1 to 4 claim that their predecessor
Gajanan Piraji Naik purchased the entire property to an extent
of 3 acres by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 19.11.2013
through one Praveen Uday Honnashetti claiming to be the GPA
holder of deceased Gundu Siddappa Kurubar. The petitioners
are joint owners in possession and cultivation of the agricultural
land mentioned hereinabove to the entire extent of 3 acres.
3. This being the facts of the case, deceased Gundu
Kurubar challenged the sale deed alleged to have been
executed by his GPA-Praveen Uday Honnashetti in favour of
Gajanan Piraji Naik, which is claimed to be a fabricated power
of attorney so also the sale deed. The same was pending in
O.S. No.116/2014. During the pendency of the said suit, the
plaintiff Gundu Siddappa Kurubar died and thereafter the suit
came to be dismissed. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit,
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568
HC-KAR
the legal heirs of Gundu Siddappa Kurubar preferred an appeal
challenging the same in RFA No.100263/20221. The said
appeal came to be allowed and the matter came to be remitted
back to the trial Court for fresh consideration. In the said
appeal, at para 11 of the judgment, this Court passed an order
as under:
" ..... Under these circumstances, the respondents are
restrained from alienating the suit schedule properties until
further order's passed by the trial Court."
4. The petitioners have also stated that they have
challenged the alleged sale deed executed on 19.11.2013 in
favour of the respondents by filing O.S. No.88 of 2014 before
the learned II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi, which is
pending adjudication. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 had submitted an
application before respondent No.7 for change of entry which
came to be rejected before the Tahasildar on 06.06.2023. The
respondent No.4 preferred an appeal before the respondent
No.6 in R.A.No.74/2024, whereby the respondent No.6 without
considering the facts and documents, proceeded to allow the
Disposed of on 16.12.2024
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568
HC-KAR
appeal by order dated 22.11.2024, directing the entry of the
names of respondent Nos.1 to 4 in respect of the properties of
the petitioners. The petitioners preferred revision petition
before the respondent No.5-Deputy Commissioner, which came
to be dismissed. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.
5. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the orders passed by the respondent Nos.5 and
6 are illegal and contrary to the remand order passed by this
Court in RFA proceedings, wherein this Court clearly stated that
respondents are restrained from alienating the suit schedule
properties till further orders to be passed by the trial Court in
O.S.No.116/2014, while remanding the mater back for fresh
consideration. However, without considering this aspect,
respondent No.6 has erroneously passed an order based on the
judgment in O.S.No.116/2014 by entering the names of the
respondents in the revenue extract. Consequently, the
petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order, whereby the
First Appellate Court has passed an order restraining the
alienation of the properties until the disposal of the suit.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568
HC-KAR
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting
parties vehemently contends that the respondents have acted
in accordance with law, having registered a sale deed lawfully
and obtained dismissal of O.S.No.116/2014, which does not call
for interference, as the revenue entry has been made subject
to the outcome of the original suit proceedings, which are still
pending before this Court, wherein a direction was given to the
respondents not be alienate the suit schedule properties, till the
orders are passed by the trial Court. All these facts are not
disputed by either parties, and the authorities have accordingly
passed the impugned order. The grievance of the petitioners is
that, in the absence of an entry in revenue records as regards
the clear order in the RFA restraining the respondents from
alienating the suit schedule properties, if the respondents were
to create 3rd parties rights, it would result in further hardship,
inconvenience, and lead to multiplicity of proceedings in the
pending suit before the trial Court. Therefore, the petitioners
seek a direction for an entry to be made before the revenue
authority restraining the respondents from alienating the suit
schedule properties, so also there is no 3rd party right created
which will result in the sale of properties and cause prejudice to
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568
HC-KAR
the 3rd parties. Under the circumstance, the present petition is
filed by the petitioners.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners
and the respondents, there is some force in the submission
made by the learned counsel for the petitioners, for the reason
that there is no dispute with regard to the order passed in the
RFA proceedings, wherein the respondents have been
restrained from alienating the suit schedule properties till
further orders are passed by the trial Court. Under the
circumstances, respondent Nos.5 and 6 are duty bound to
make appropriate entries in the revenue records, which shall be
reflected in the Record of Rights. Any 3rd party right being
created, would hamper the rights of the petitioners, and any
such rights created by the respondents in favour of 3rd parties
would be contrary to the order passed in RFA No.100263/2022,
so also any such rights created by the respondents to create
such rights in favour of 3rd parties or actions taken by the
respondents to 3rd parties, would be in violation of the said
order. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the necessary
is required to be made in the revenue records in compliance
NC: 2025:KHC-D:8568
HC-KAR
with the order passed in RFA No. 100263/2022. Accordingly, I
pass the following:
ORDER
i. Petition is disposed off, in pursuance of the
order so passed by the respondent Nos.5 and 6,
which is stated to be in continuation of the
earlier orders issued by them. An entry shall be
made in the record of rights showing that the
respondents shall not alienate the suit schedule
properties, in accordance with the orders
passed in RFA No.100263/2022 dated
16.12.2024.
ii. It is made clear that this order is passed only
with regard to the entry to be made as per the
orders in RFA No.100263/2022.
iii. This Court has not ventured into or delved into
the merits of the matter regarding the rights of
the parties.
iv. All contentions are kept open.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
JUDGE
Kmv up to para 3
KGK till end
CT-MCK
