Karnataka High Court
Jagdevi And Ors vs The Deputy Commissioner Bidar And Ors on 27 June, 2025
Author: Mohammad Nawaz
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3441-DB
WA No. 200063 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.200063 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. JAGDEVI
W/O KASHINATH
(D/O SIDRAM @ SIDRAMAPPA),
AGED ABOUT: 61 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD & AGRICULTURE,
R/O: HULESIDDA GALLI, VILLAGE ALLAMBER,
TQ & DIST: BIDAR - 585 402.
2. SHANTAMMA
W/O MADHAVRAO
(D/O SIDRAM @ SIDRAMAPPA),
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
by
BASALINGAPPA OCC: HOUSE HOLD & AGRICULTURE,
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON
R/O: G.P. NO.15, VILLAGE MUDHOL (B),
Location: HIGH TQ: AURAD, DIST: BIDAR - 585 402.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
3. MAHADEVI
W/O RAJKUMAR RIKKE,
(D/O SIDRAM @ SIDRAMAPPA),
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSE HOLD & AGRICULTURE,
R/O: VILLAGE ALLAMBER,
TQ: & DIST: BIDAR - 585 402.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. LIYAQAT FAREED USTAD, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3441-DB
WA No. 200063 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BIDAR,
O/O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMPLEX,
OPP: OLD BUS STAND,
BIDAR - 585 401.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER BIDAR,
O/O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER COMPLEX,
OPP. OLD BUS STAND,
BIDAR - 585 401.
3. SUBHASH
S/O NAGSHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
4. NAGSHETTY
S/O LATE SIDRAMAPPA @ SIDRAM,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
5. MARUTHI
S/O LATE SIDRAMAPPA @ SIDRAM,
AGED ABOUT: 37 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
6. SANGMESH
S/O LATE SIDRAMAPPA @ SIDRAM,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
(ALL R/O BESIDES HOUSE BEARING
G.P. NO.1-150, OLD MAILOOR,
TQ & DIST: BIDAR - 585 403)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN C. BASAREDDY- GA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. S.S. MAMADAPUR, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. SHARANABASAPPA K. BABSHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR
R4, R5 & R6 ARE SERVED)
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3441-DB
WA No. 200063 of 2024
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
HIGH COURT ACT 1964, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED:30.08.2023 PASSED IN W.P.NO.201905 OF 2023, AND
FURTHER BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN TOTO
WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 18.06.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED
THEREIN AS UNDER:.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K S HEMALEKHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K. S. HEMALEKHA)
This intra Court appeal arises out of the dismissal of
W.P.No.201905/2023 dated 30.08.2023 by the learned Single
Judge, wherein the challenge to the order dated 22.06.2023 of
the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar preferred by the appellants
herein was affirmed whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar
had set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated
16.01.2023, which had set aside the Mutation Order
No.27/1998-99 and Mutation No.3/2013-14.
2. The genealogy of the parties is culled out here for
ready reference:
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3441-DB
HC-KAR
Gundappa (Died long ago)
Kallamma W/o Gundappa (Died long ago)
Saraswati W/o Sidramappa Bhagirathibai W/o Manikappa
Died in 2005 Died issueless
Nagshetty Maruti Sangmesh Jagadevi Shantamma Mahadevi
R-4 R-5 R-6 A-1 A-2 A-3
Subhash Brother
of Manikappa
R-3
3. Gundappa, the original propositus was survived by
his wife Kallamma and two daughters namely, Saraswati and
Bhagirathibai. Saraswati had six children and Bhagirathibai
who was married to one Manikappa died issueless. The brother
of Manikappa is one Subhash who is respondent No.3 in the
present proceedings. The land bearing Sy.No.45/A, measuring
02 acres 27 guntas of Mailoor village, Tq. & Dist. Bidar
(hereinafter referred to as 'subject property' for short) was
originally in the joint name of Bhagirathibai and Manikappa
under the Mutation Order No.27/1998-99. After the demise of
Bhagirathibai, through Mutation Order No.3/2013-14, subject
property was mutated in the name of respondent No.3. The
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3441-DB
HC-KAR
appellants are the daughters of Saraswati, sister of
Bhagirathibai.
4. The case of the appellants is that, respondent No.3
illegally and fraudulently got his name mutated in the revenue
records of the subject property without any legal right, title or
interest and behind the back of the appellants who are the legal
heirs of the original propositus Gundappa through their mother
Saraswati.
5. The brothers of the appellants (respondent Nos.4
to 6) had earlier filed O.S.No.59/2016 seeking declaration of
title and injunction in respect of the subject property, the said
suit came to be dismissed on 16.09.2020 and the dismissal of
suit was confirmed in R.A.No.67/2020 by judgment dated
08.11.2022. The Assistant Commissioner, Bidar upon allowing
the appeal filed by the appellants held that the Mutation Entry
No.27/1998-99 dated 09.03.1998 and Mutation No.03/2013-14
dated 31.10.2013 in respect of the subject property were liable
to be set aside. The Assistant Commissioner observed that
none of the parties had obtained any declaratory decree from
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3441-DB
HC-KAR
Civil Court or produced any legal heir certificate substantiating
their title over the subject property. It was further held that, in
respect of the subject property, the parties have already
approached the Civil Court and litigation regarding their
respective rights is presently pending adjudication. The
Assistant Commissioner directed that the entries in the revenue
of records relating to the subject property be restored to the
status prior to the impugned mutations, until the disposal of
pending civil suit and the Thasildar, Bidar was directed to
implement this restoration and submit compliance report.
6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant
Commissioner, Bidar, respondent No.3 preferred revision
petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar. The Deputy
Commissioner allowed the revision, setting aside the order of
the Assistant Commissioner and observed that civil suit in O.S.
No.59/2016 filed by brothers of the appellants (respondent
Nos.4 to 6) seeking declaration of title, had already been
dismissed and the same has been confirmed in
R.A.No.67/2020. Relying upon the finality of the Civil Court's
finding, the Deputy Commissioner held that there was no basis
for setting aside the mutation entries and accordingly reversed
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3441-DB
HC-KAR
the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants
challenged the Deputy Commissioner's order before this Court.
The learned Single Judge affirmed the order of the Deputy
Commissioner holding that the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.59/2016 as confirmed in R.A.No.67/2020 has attained
finality.
7. Heard the learned counsel on both sides.
8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the
appellants that after the death of their mother, Bhagirathibai
along with her husband Manikappa got their name entered in
the revenue records of the subject property and the name of
the respondent No.2 was entered without any legal right after
the death of Bhagirathibai. It is asserted that Bhagirathibai
and Manikappa died issueless. The original holder of the subject
property was Gundappa, after his death the name of Kallamma
was entered. On death of Kallamma W/o Gundappa, the two
daughters Saraswati (mother of appellants and sister of
Bhagirathibai) would inherit the subject property. It is further
contended that on death of Bhagirathibai, the subject property
would revert to the legal heirs of Bhagirathibai, namely her
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3441-DB
HC-KAR
sister Saraswati's children i.e., the appellants. It is contended
that Subhash - respondent No.3, the brother of Manikappa has
got his name mutated in the revenue records showing himself
as joint owner along with Bhagirathibai, and later as the sole
successor, the mutation effected in his name was behind their
back and without their notice. It is contended that the
restoration of revenue records to the original stage prior to the
mutation effected in favour of Bhagirathibai, Manikappa and
respondent No.3 by the Assistant Commissioner is justified.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3
contends that the mutation entry in his favour is based on the
registered Will executed by Bhagirathibai, the original joint
holder of the subject property with her husband Manikappa.
The name of respondent No.3 stands in his name since 1998
and nearly after two decades the appellants have challenged
the mutation entry before the Assistant Commissioner. The
appellant's brothers had filed O.S.No.59/2016 for declaration
and permanent injunction which came to be dismissed on
merits confirmed in R.A. No.67/2020 and the judgment has
attained finality. The Assistant Commissioner while allowing
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3441-DB
HC-KAR
the appeal of the appellants failed to consider the order passed
by the Civil Court. The Deputy Commissioner rightly re-
appreciated and restored the name of respondent No.3 in the
mutation record which has been rightly affirmed by the learned
Single Judge. It is submitted that civil suit in O.S.No.255/2024
is filed by the appellants for partition and separate possession
in respect of the subject property and also for a declaration
declaring that the judgment and decree in O.S.No.59/2016 is
not binding upon them is pending consideration and hence it is
contended that the existing mutation and revenue entries
cannot be undone unless and until a competent Civil Court
passes a decree in their favour.
10. We have given our anxious consideration to the
contentions urged by both sides and carefully perused the
material on record. Upon perusal, we find that appellants claim
succession through their mother Saraswati, the sister of
deceased Bhagirathibai, who jointly held the subject property
with her husband Manikappa. They died issueless, and the
name of respondent No.3 - Subhash, brother of Manikappa was
mutated in the revenue records through Mutation Order
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3441-DB
HC-KAR
No.27/1998-99. The appellants challenged the said mutation
after a decade. Though they contend that the mutation was
made behind their back and claim inheritance rights, no
material is produced to evidence their rights. Respondent No.3
asserts that the mutation was lawfully done based on a Will and
continued possession, which remains undisturbed. Earlier, the
appellants' brothers (Respondent Nos.4 to 6) has filed
O.S.No.59/2016 seeking declaration and injunction over the
subject property, which was dismissed and affirmed in appeal
in R.A.No.67/2020 and has attained finality. Though the
appellants now claim to have filed O.S.No.255/2024 seeking
partition and declaration that the judgment in O.S.No.59/2016
is not binding on them, the pendency of the subsequent suit
does not entitle them to disturb long standing mutation entries
or seek revenue rectification without a declaration of title from
a Competent Court. In the absence of any legal right and title
in their favour the Deputy Commissioner rightly reversed the
order of the Assistant Commissioner, the order of the Deputy
Commissioner has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge,
accordingly we find no merit in the appeal and we pass the
following:
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3441-DB
HC-KAR
ORDER
Writ appeal is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(K S HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
BL
CT:NI
