Karnataka High Court
Smt. Siddlingamma vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 10 September, 2025
Author: Jyoti Mulimani
Bench: Jyoti Mulimani
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5296
WP No. 201255 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION NO.201255 OF 2021 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SIDDLINGAMMA
W/O RAVI SHANKER GOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O GAVIGATTA VILLAGE,
TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR-584123.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL., SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
THEJAS KUMAR N RAICHUR DISTRICT,
Location: HIGH RAICHUR-584101.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
RAICHUR SUB-DIVISION,
RAICHUR-584101.
3. THE TAHSILDAR,
TQ. MANVI, MANVI,
DIST. RAICHUR-584123.
4. PAMPANA GOUDA
S/O CHANDRASHEKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5296
WP No. 201255 of 2021
HC-KAR
R/O GAVIGATTA VILLAGE-584123,
NOW RESIDING AT BEHIND MILTON SCHOOL,
R.G. CAMP ROAD, TQ. MANVI,
DIST. RAICHUR-584123.
5. SMT. PRABHAVTHI W/O PAMPANA GOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE AND HOUSE HOLD,
R/O GAVIGATTA VILLAGE-584123
NOW RESIDING AT BEHIND MILTON SCHOOL,
R.G. CAMP ROAD, TQ. MANVI,
DIST. RAICHUR-584123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M., AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. SANTOSH B. PATIL., AND
SRI. S.C.KULKARNI., ADVOCATES FOR R4 & R5 [ABSENT])
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN
RELIEFS.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS
UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil., Senior counsel on behalf of
Sri.Mahantesh Patil., for the petitioner has appeared through
video conferencing.
Sri.Mahantesh Patil., counsel for the petitioner and
Sri.Sheshadri Jaishankar.M., AGA for respondents 1 to 3 have
appeared in person.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5296
HC-KAR
There is no representation on behalf of respondents 4 and
5, either personally or through video conferencing.
As could be seen from the daily order sheet, the daily
order sheet, the petition was listed on 09.09.2025, on that day,
there was no representation on behalf of respondents 4 and 5.
Hence, for appearance of counsel for respondents 4 and 5, it
was ordered to be listed on 10.09.2025. It was also ordered
that if none appears for respondents 4 and 5, the Court will
proceed to pass appropriate orders on the merits of the case.
The petition is listed today. As already noted above, there
is no representation on behalf of respondents 4 and 5, either
personally or through video conferencing. Hence, this Court
proceeds to pass orders on the merits of the case.
2. The brief facts are these:
It is stated that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the
agricultural lands bearing Sy.No.114/A and 114/AA measuring
to an extent of 29 Acres 09 Guntas situated at Gavigatta
Village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District. It is said that the fourth
respondent is the elder brother of the petitioner and the fifth
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5296
HC-KAR
respondent is the wife of the fourth respondent. The property
stood in the name of the petitioner. It is contended that
respondents 4 and 5 behind the back of the petitioner got
mutated their names in the revenue records in respect of the
aforesaid lands as per MR No.99/1985-86. The petitioner
questioned the same by filing an appeal before the Assistant
Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner vide order dated
13.07.2000, allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order,
respondents 4 and 5 filed a Revision Petition before the Deputy
Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated
04.05.2006 dismissed the Revision Petition and the same has
attained finality.
As things stood thus, the petitioner filed a suit in
O.S.No.107/1999 for the relief of declaration and permanent
injunction against respondents 4 and 5. Respondents 4 and 5
filed a detailed written statement. Based on the pleadings, the
Trial Court framed the issues. The Trial Court vide Judgment
and Decree dated 17.03.2007 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by
the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court, the petitioner
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5296
HC-KAR
preferred an appeal in RFA No.845/2007 and the said appeal
was withdrawn.
As the matter stood thus, respondents 4 and 5 filed a
Civil Misc.No.35/2010 under Section 132 of Karnataka Land
Revenue Act with a prayer to transmit the Decree dated
17.03.2007 passed in O.S.No.107/1999 to the Deputy
Commissioner to effect mutation in their favor. The Trial Court
vide order dated 14.09.2010 allowed the Civil Misc.No.35/2010.
As against the said order, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition
before this Court in W.P.No.41416/2010. This Court vide order
dated 11.11.2011 set aside the order of the Trial Court.
Strangely, respondents 4 and 5 filed a petition before the
Deputy Commissioner under Section 54 R/w.Section 136(3) of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to mutate their names in the
revenue records with respect to the subject land based on the
Judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in
O.S.No.107/1999. The Deputy Commissioner without verifying
the records and without issuing notice to the petitioner,
forwarded the application to the Tahsildar by a letter dated
26.11.2014. The Tahsildar on 12.01.2015 without issuing
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5296
HC-KAR
notice to the petitioner ordered to make mutation in the names
of respondents 4 and 5. Hence, the petitioner approached the
Deputy Commissioner and filed objections along with the order
passed by this Court in W.P.No.41416/2010. Thereafter, the
Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahsildar to take decision as
per the directions of the High Court. The petitioner once again
filed a detailed statement of objections before the Tahsildar.
The Tahasildar issued an endorsement on 31.12.2015. It is
contended that the Tahasildar mutated the names of
respondents 4 and 5 without taking note of his own
endorsement and also the order passed by this Court in Writ
Petition. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the
Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner vide
order dated 12.12.2016 allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the
same, respondents 4 and 5 preferred a revision petition before
the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner vide
order dated 04.06.2021 set aside the order of the Assistant
Commissioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is
before this Court.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5296
HC-KAR
3. Counsel for the petitioner has urged several
contentions.
Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil., Senior counsel for the petitioner in
presenting his arguments strenuously urged that the Trial Court
dismissed the suit holding that the parties to the suit including
respondents 4 and 5 have not proved their case and answered
all the issues in the negative. He argued by saying that there
was no transmission of the decree to the Deputy
Commissioner. Therefore, he submits that the action on the
part of the Deputy Commissioner is unsustainable in law.
Urging several contentions, AGA submits that the Writ
Petition may be dismissed.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers
with care.
5. The facts are sufficiently said and do not require
reiteration. The issue falls within a narrow compass and relates
to the setting aside of mutation entries. Suffice it to note that
the petitioner had initiated a suit against respondents 4 and 5
and a detailed written statement was filed by respondents 4
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5296
HC-KAR
and 5. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court had framed as
many as ten issues. It is significant to note that the Trial Court
vide Judgment and Decree dated 17.03.2007 dismissed the suit
holding that the parties to the lis did not prove their case and
answered all the issues in the negative.
Strangely, after a lapse of almost three years,
respondents 4 and 5 filed a petition under Section 132 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act to transmit the Decree to the
Deputy Commissioner for effecting mutation of the land in their
favor and the same was allowed by the Trial Court. It is not in
dispute that this Court vide order dated 11.11.2011 had set-
aside the order of the Trial Court for transmitting the Decree to
the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, respondents 4 and 5
could not have filed an application for effecting mutation.
Moreover, under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the
provision for correcting the revenue records based on the
Judgment and Decree or Court order is provided under Section
132(3) of the Act. In the instant case, respondents 4 and 5 had
already exhausted the said remedy by filing a petition in
C.Misc.No.35/2010 and had suffered an order passed in
NC: 2025:KHC-K:5296
HC-KAR
W.P.No.41416/2010. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner
could not have entertained the application. In fact, the decree
was not at all transmitted to the Deputy Commissioner. In my
view, the Deputy Commissioner has failed to have regard to
relevant consideration and disregarded relevant matters. For
the reasons stated above, the order of the Deputy
Commissioner is liable to be set-aside. Accordingly, it is set-
aside.
6. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated
04.06.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Cfð ¸ÀA:
PÀA/j.C¦Ã¯ï/38/2016-17 vide Annexure-P is quashed. A Mandamus
is ordered directing respondents 1 to 3 to restore the name of
the petitioner in the RORs of Sy.Nos.114/A and 114/AA situated
at Gavigatta Village, Manvi Taluk, Raichur District.
7. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI MULIMANI)
JUDGE
TKN
