Karnataka High Court
Smt Shanakka W/O Nagappa Hulikuppe vs The Deputy Commissioner Belagavi on 2 June, 2025
Author: R.Devdas
Bench: R.Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7261-DB
WA No.100367 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
WRIT APPEAL NO.100367 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHANAKKA W/O NAGAPPA HULIKUPPE
AGE. 80 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSE HOLD WORK & AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GALATAGA, NOW AT. BEDAKIHAL,
TALUK. NIPPANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-51214.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. SHIVARAJ P. MUDHOL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHIKKODI, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591201.
3. THE SUB-TAHASHILDAR
SADALAGA, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591239.
MOHANKUMAR
B SHELAR
Digitally signed by
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
Location: High Court of
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
SADALAGA, TQ. CHIKKODI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591239.
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2025.06.04 10:20:57
+0530
5. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
GALATGA, TQ. NIPPANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591239.
6. MANOJ S/O MAHAVEER HULIKUPPE
AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GALATGA, TQ. NIPPANI, DIST. BELAGAVI-591239.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAMESH B. CHIGARI, AGA FOR R1 TO R5;
SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, ADVOCATE FOR R6)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7261-DB
WA No.100367 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO, SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 18/07/2024 IN WRIT PETITION NO.103462/2024
(KLR-RES) PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE BY ALLOWING
THIS APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)
The appellant is respondent No.6 in the writ petition.
The appellant is aggrieved of the impugned order passed
by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.103462/2024 dated
18.07.2024.
2. The brief facts of the case are that, the record
of rights/Katha in respect of 28 guntas of land bearing
R.S.No.128/9 situated at Galataga village was standing in
the name of late Sri.Nagappa Babu Hulikuppe, husband of
the appellant herein. The husband of the appellant died on
23.03.2018. Respondent No.6/original writ petitioner
approached the revenue authorities contending that
Sri.Nagappa Babu Hulikuppe has left behind a registered
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7261-DB
HC-KAR
Will bequeathing the property in question in her favour.
Consequently, a mutation entry was made in favour of
respondent No.6 in M.E.No.H184/2017-18 dated
17.07.2018. Learned counsel for the appellant would
however contend that revenue authorities made mutation
entry without following the due process of law as provided
in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Karnataka
Land Record of Rights Rules, 1961 where Rule 34
mandates issuance of notice before causing any such
mutation entry. The appellant therefore filed an appeal
before the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section
136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act' for short) raising a challenge to the
mutation entry bearing M.E.No.H184/2017-18 dated
17.07.2018. However, the Assistant Commissioner passed
a cryptic order on 26.09.2022 stating that there is delay of
three years in filing the appeal; the Will had to be
probated and therefore, the appellant was directed to
approach the competent authority. Aggrieved by the said
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7261-DB
HC-KAR
order, the appellant approached the Deputy Commissioner
invoking Section 136(3) of the Act. The Deputy
Commissioner passed an order on 06.02.2024 setting
aside the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner and the earlier M.E.No.H184/2017-18 dated
17.07.2018. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the
Deputy Commissioner, respondent No.6 approached this
court in W.P.No.103462/2024.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
at any rate the entry could not be directed to be reverted
back in the name of respondent No.6 herein, since
admittedly the mutation entry bearing M.E.No.H184/2017-
18 dated 17.07.2018 was without the notice of the
appellant herein.
4. We have to notice that the learned Single Judge
in paragraph 8 has noticed the fact that the Deputy
Commissioner had passed an order on 06.02.2024 and no
sooner the name of the appellant was entered in the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7261-DB
HC-KAR
record of rights, the appellant sold the property in favour
of a third party by a registered sale deed dated
29.05.2024. That being the position, it would be
impermissible for this court to direct re-entry of the name
of the appellant in respect of the property in question,
since admittedly, the appellant sold the property in favour
of a third party. The appellant therefore does not retain
any right to seek entry of her name in the land records.
The learned Single Judge has also noticed the fact that two
suits have already been filed in O.S.Nos.146 and 157 of
2024. The learned Single Judge has therefore directed that
since the parties have already approached the civil court
agitating their rights, the outcome of the civil disputes will
decide the fate of the entry for the future.
5. In that view of the matter, we are of the
considered opinion that since the appellant does not retain
any right to seek re-entry of her name in the land records,
when admittedly the appellant has disposed of the
property in favour of a third party, we do not see any
NC: 2025:KHC-D:7261-DB
HC-KAR
reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Needless to observe that the appellant is at liberty to
prosecute the civil suit already filed in O.S.No.146/2024.
Sd/-
(R.DEVDAS)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K V ARAVIND)
JUDGE
MBS, CT:VP
