Karnataka High Court
Abdul Shukur vs Deputy Commissioner on 14 October, 2025
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6030
WP No. 200834 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 200834 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. ABDUL SHUKUR S/O MOHD. IMAMSAB,
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GURUMITKAL, TQ.GURUMITKAL,
DIST.YADGIRI-585214.
2. ABDUL GAFAR @ AFSAR S/O MOHD. IMAMSAB,
AGE:45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GURUMITKAL, TQ.GURUMITKAL,
DIST.YADGIRI-585214.
3. BASHEER AHMED S/O MOHD. IMAMSAB,
AGE:40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GURUMITKAL, TQ.GURUMITKAL,
Digitally signed by
SACHIN DIST.YADGIRI-585214.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 4. NAZEER AHMED S/O MOHD. IMAMSAB,
KARNATAKA
AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GURUMITKAL, TQ.GURUMITKAL,
DIST.YADGIRI-585214.
5. RASHEED AHMED S/O MOHD. IMAMSAB,
AGE:42 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. GURUMITKAL, TQ.GURUMITKAL,
DIST.YADGIRI-585214.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI V. K. NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6030
WP No. 200834 of 2025
HC-KAR
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
YADGIRI, TQ. AND DIST. YADGIRI- 585201.
2. CHIEF OFFICER,
CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, GURUMITKAL,
TQ. GURUMITKAL, DIST YADGIRI-585214.
3. MOHD. SIDDIKI
S/O MOHD IMAMSAB CHUNNU @ MADAKI,
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O.GURUMITKAL, TQ.GURUMITKAL,
DIST. YADGIRI-585214.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA FOR R1;
MS. BHUWANESHWARI G.B., ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. GEETA SAJJANSHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
R2 SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I)
CALL FOR RECORDS OF THE MUTATION BEARING NO. TMC/
MUT/ 68/1991-92 MUTATION NO. TP/ GKL/ MUT/ 73/2006-07
DATED 13.02.2007 IN RESPECT OF HOUSE PROPERTY BEARING
NO.1-7-97, 1-7-98(NEW) PRESENT NEW NO. 1-7-01, 1-7-02,
1-7-03 OF GURUMITKAL TQ. GURUMITKAL FROM RESPONDENT
NO.3 AND CALL FOR RECORDS IN DUDC/APM/06/2021-22; II)
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE ORDER DATED
13.12.2024 BEARING NO.DUDC/APM/06/2021-22/2541/1
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-K; III)
AND GRANT SUCH OTHER OR FURTHER RELIEF OF RELIEFS AS
THIS COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6030
WP No. 200834 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL)
Petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by
the order dated 13.12.2024 produced at Annexure-K, by
which the Deputy Commissioner, Yadagiri District, Yadagiri
in exercise of his power under Section 322 of the
Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1964 [hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act' for brevity] has allowed the
revision petition filed by respondent No.3 herein,
cancelling the mutation entry No.TMC/MUT/68/ 1991-92
and mutation entry No.TP/GKL/MUT/723/2006-07 dated
13.02.2007 and has further directed the entries to be
made in furtherance to the registered deed of sale dated
25.09.1975 bearing No.1072/1975-76.
2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioners
and respondent No.3 are the children of one Mohammed
Imamsab. In that, respondent No.3 - Mohammed Siddiki is
born to the first wife and petitioners 1 to 5 are born to the
second wife of said Mohammed Imamsab. That the said
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6030
HC-KAR
Mohammed Imamsab along with his brother Mohammed
Ismail had purchased the subject property in terms of
deed of sale dated 25.09.1975 in the name of respondent
No.3. That though the deed of sale was in the name of
respondent No.3, the revenue records were mutated in the
name of Mohammed Ismail, the uncle of the parties herein
and their father Mohammed Imam, which continued in the
revenue records till the year 2007. Thereafter, upon the
demise of Mohammed Ismail, the name of the father of
the petitioners and respondent No.3 namely Mohammed
Imamsab was mutated in the revenue records which
continued till his demise in the year 2014. Things stood
thus, the petitioners have been in possession and
enjoyment of the subject property though the property
stood in the name of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3
herein filed a belated revision petition before the Deputy
Commissioner under Section 322 of the Act. Accepting the
revision petition, the Deputy Commissioner passed the
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6030
HC-KAR
impugned order as noted above. Being aggrieved by the
same, the petitioners are before this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Jagadish vs. State of Karnataka and others1, submits
that the revision petition filed by respondent No.3 itself
was not maintainable inasmuch as same had been filed
after lapse of 27 years which is beyond the reasonable
period. He submits when the statute does not prescribe
the period for taking any action, the reasonable period
cannot be construed to allow the petition of this nature to
be filed after lapse of more than 27 years. He submits
originally the names of the father and uncle of the
petitioners had been mutated in the revenue records till
2007, thereafter, in the name of father of the parties till
the year 2014. Such being the case, the respondent No.3
having kept quiet all along, had acquiesced and estopped
from questioning the entries found in the revenue records.
(2021) 12 SCC 812
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6030
HC-KAR
The Deputy Commissioner has grossly erred in not
appreciating this factual and legal aspect of the matter
resulting in irregular and illegal order being passed.
Hence, seeks for allowing the petition.
4. Per contra, Miss Bhuvaneshwari, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No.3, vehemently
opposing the petition, submits that the property
admittedly belonged to respondent No.3 and that the said
fact has not been disputed by the petitioners. She submits
that when the property was purchased apparently
respondent No.3 was young and the property was being
managed by his uncle and father. It is under those
circumstances, the revenue entries were effected
apparently in the name of uncle and thereafter father of
the parties. She submits these facts to the matter cannot
be ignored in considering the reasonable period of
limitation to be for challenging the revenue entries. That
the ownership of the property remains with respondent
No.3. That being the case, the petitioners who have no
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6030
HC-KAR
right over the property cannot take advantage of
technicality in entering of name of their uncle and father in
the revenue records. Hence, she seeks for dismissal of the
petition.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the official respondents submits that the
order has been passed in accordance with law and if the
parties have any grievance, they are open to approach the
Civil Court and seek their rights resolved in a manner
known to law. Since the petitioners are claiming to be in
possession of property, it is for them to seek such remedy
as may be available under law.
6. Heard. Perused the records.
7. There is no dispute in the fact that the
petitioners and respondent No.3 are the children of
Mohammed Imamsab. There is also no dispute in the fact
that the subject property was purchased in the name of
respondent No.3 in terms of deed of sale dated
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6030
HC-KAR
25.09.1975. It appears that though the property was
purchased in the name of respondent No.3, names of
uncle of the parties namely Mohammed Ismail and their
father was mutated in the revenue records which
continued upto the year 2007. Thereafter, the name of
father of the parties, namely Mohammed Imamsab was
mutated in the revenue records, which continued till his
demise in the year 2014.
8. Though as contented by the learned counsel for
the petitioners, revision petition has been preferred by
respondent No.3 under Section 322 of the Act, only in the
year 2021, this Court cannot be oblivious of the fact with
regard to relationship between the parties and the
attended circumstances. As seen in the copy of the deed
of sale dated 25.09.1975 age of the respondent No.3 is
shown as 22 years. Considering the fact that initially the
revenue records of the subject property stood in the name
of the uncle and thereafter in the name of the father of the
parties, inference has to be drawn with regard to
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6030
HC-KAR
respondent No.3 not taking action in time in view of his
age and their relationship. There is noting on record to
indicate any hostilities between respondent No.3 and his
uncle and father. Further, admittedly property was
purchased in the name of respondent No.3 in terms of a
registered deed of sale dated 25.09.1975, possession of
the property has been with father of the parties. There
has been no further conveyance of title in the manner
known to law. Mere revenue entries would not confer,
alter or extinguish any title over the immovable property.
Should the petitioners have any right, title and interest in
the property, they are at liberty to have the same
determined and adjudicated by a Court of competent
jurisdiction. No error or illegality can be found in the
impugned order.
9. In that view the matter, the petition is disposed
of reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek such
substantial civil remedy as may be available before a
competent Court of jurisdiction.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6030
HC-KAR
10. At this juncture, it is submitted that the suit
schedule property is a residential house, respondent No.3
is not residing in the said house and the petitioners are
continuing to reside in said house. In that view of the
matter, subject to outcome of the proceedings that may
be initiated by the petitioners, their possession shall not
be disturbed except in the manner known to law.
Petition is disposed of accordingly.
In view of disposal of the petition, pending
interlocutory applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL)
JUDGE
SWK
CT:PK
