Karnataka High Court
Anand S/O Kedari Kochari vs The State Of Karnataka on 21 March, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5210
WP No. 107325 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
WRIT PETITION NO. 107325 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. ANAND S/O. KEDARI KOCHARI
AGE: 70 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MARAGAI GALLI,
KAKATI-591113
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. PUNDALIK S/O. KEDARI KOCHARI,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MARAGAI GALLI,
KAKATI-591113
TQ & DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHETAN MUNNOLI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by V
N BADIGER AND:
Location:
HIGH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
DHARWAD M.S.BUILDING,
BENCH, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
DHARWAD
BENGALURU-560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BELAGAVI
D.C OFFICE COMPOUND,
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI SUB - DIVISION,
4360/A, CHAVAT GALLI,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5210
WP No. 107325 of 2024
KHADE BAZAR,
RAVIWAR PETH,
BELAGAVI - 590 001.
4. THE TAHASHILDAR
BELAGAVI
BELAGAVI - 591 001,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
5. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR, KAKATI
KAKATI - 591 113.
DIST. BELAGAVI.
6. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
KAKATI,
KAKATI - 591 113.
DIST. BELAGAVI.
7. PARASRAM S/O. MASHU GAVI,
AGE: 65 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YAMANAPUR GALLI,
KAKATI - 591 113
TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI.
8. JYOTIBA S/O. MASHU GAVI,
AGE: 57 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YAMANAPUR GALLI,
KAKATI - 591 113.
TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI.
9. SIDRAI S/O. MASHU GAVI
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YAMANAPUR GALLI,
KAKATI - 591 113
TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI.
10. SMT. SAVITRI
W/O. MARUTI PATIL,
AGE: 67 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: UCHGAON - 591 128
TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5210
WP No. 107325 of 2024
11. SMT. SUDHA
W/O. GOPAL BIRJE,
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: BASAWAN GALLI, SHAHAPUR
BELAGAVI - 590 003.
12. SMT. RENUKA
W/O. KUMAR KANABARKAR,
AGE: 47 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: UCHGAON - 591 128
TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI.
13. SMT. BHAGUBAI W/O. MASHU GAVI
AGE: 77 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: YAMANAPUR GALLI,
KAKATI - 591 113
TQ. & DIST. BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R6)
-----
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
30.05.2024 PASSED IN RB/RTA/184/2023-24 BY THE RESPONDENT
NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY REVERSING THE ORDER DATED
27.10.2023 PASSED IN R.A.NO.412/2022 BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3
VIDE ANNEXURE-B IN CONFIRMING THE MUTATION ENTRY BEARING
MR NO.T102/2021-2022 DATED 17.03.2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN
RESPECT OF PETITION LAND.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5210
WP No. 107325 of 2024
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M.G.UMA
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking
issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash
the order dated 30.05.2024, passed by respondent
No.2 - Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, produced as
per Annexure-A.
2. Heard Sri. Chetan Munnoli, learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri. T. Hanumareddy, learned AGA for
respondents No.1 to 6. Perused the materials on
record.
3. It is the contention of the petitioners that, their father
is said to have executed the sale deed in favor of
Mashnu Mayanna Gavi, who is the predecessor in title,
of respondents No.7 to 13. Since the petitioners were
claiming right under their father, objected for
mutating the name of the purchaser under the sale
deed. The same was kept pending for some time.
Subsequently, based on the registered sale deed, the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5210
name of the purchaser was mutated in the revenue
records. Thereafter, the petitioners, as plaintiffs, filed
a suit in O.S.No.105/1984, seeking declaration that
the sale deed in question was not binding on them.
The said suit came to be dismissed. Challenging the
same, R.A.No.215/1987 was filed. The said appeal
was allowed, and the suit of the plaintiffs in
O.S.No.105/1984 was decreed.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendants have
preferred a second appeal in RSA No.503/1991. The
RSA was disposed of vide judgment dated
03.06.1998, directing the petitioners to file a suit for
partition and separate possession of their 2/3rd share
in the suit property. After a lapse of around 17 years,
the petitioners appears to have filed the suit in
O.S.No.67/2015, for partition and separate
possession. The said suit came to be dismissed on
01.02.2022. Being aggrieved by the same, the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5210
petitioners have preferred RFA No.100145/2022,
which is pending consideration before this Court.
5. In the meantime, respondent No.2 - the Deputy
Commissioner, passed the impugned order noting that
the petitioners have not succeeded in their attempt
before the Civil Court and that, even their second suit
for partition and separate possession, i.e.,
O.S.No.67/2015, had been dismissed and the RFA is
still pending consideration. Therefore, he ordered for
removal of the names of the petitioners from the
revenue records by setting aside the order of the
Assistant Commissioner, dated 27.10.2023. However,
the Deputy Commissioner made it very clear that, the
entries in the revenue records shall be subject to the
result of RFA No.100145/2022, pending before this
Court.
6. The dates and events referred to above since
18.07.1964, disclose that, the petitioners were not
diligent in prosecuting their claim, however, now the
NC: 2025:KHC-D:5210
RFA is pending consideration before this Court. Under
such circumstances, I do not find any illegality or
perversity in the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner directing restoration of the order dated
17.03.2022 and setting aside the order of the
Assistant Commissioner dated 27.10.2023, which is,
of course, subject to the result of the pending first
appeal in RFA No.100145/2022 before this Court.
7. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, it is dismissed.
Sd/-
(M.G.UMA)
JUDGE
gab
CT:ANB
