[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Rehana W/O. Mokashi Khan vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2306
WP No. 107879 of 2016
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 107879 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
REHANA W/O. MOKASHI KHAN
AGE. 84 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD,
R/O. ASHOK NAGAR, BELAGAVI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESH I ZIRALI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS SECRETARY,
TO REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-01.
2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND
CITY SURVEY NORTH ZONE,
BELGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI - 590001.
3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI - 590001.
MANJANNA
E 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
CITY SURVEY, BELAGAVI,
Digitally signed by DIST. BELAGAVI-590001.
MANJANNA E
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
5. ABDULKARIM S/O. ABDUL SATTAR BHALDAR
Date: 2026.02.18
10:31:27 +0530 AGE. MAJOR, R/O. CTS NO.5867,
MALMARUTI, MAHANTESH NAGAR,
BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI - 590001.
6. SATTEPPA S/O. RAYAPPA MEDAR
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. DADDI, TQ. HUKKERI - 591309,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B.SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 11.02.2026;
NOTICE TO R6 IS SERVED)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2306
WP No. 107879 of 2016
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 21.07.2016 PASSED IN REV/SR-22/2015-16 BY 2ND
RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-F TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY; AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the order dated
21.07.2016, passed by respondent No.2-Joint Director of
Land City Survey North Zone, Belagavi (Joint Director) in
R.P.No.REV/SR-22/2015-16 (Annexure-F), whereby, the
revision petition filed by the private respondents has been
allowed and the earlier order of mutation in favour of the
petitioner has been set aside.
Brief facts:
2. The property in question is Plot No.858, bearing
CTS No.5868 measuring 30x40 feet situated at Vantmuri
Colony, Belagavi. The said plot was originally allotted in
favour of Parvayya Kallayya Pujari in the year 1982. The
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2306
HC-KAR
petitioner purchased the property under a registered sale
deed dated 12.02.2013. After purchase, the petitioner
found that name of respondent No.4 was wrongly entered in
the CTS record. The petitioner preferred an appeal before
the Deputy Director of Land Records in CTS Appeal
No.44/2012-13. By order dated 18.11.2013, the Deputy
Director allowed the appeal and directed deletion of name of
respondent No.4 and mutation of the petitioner's name in
the revenue records. Subsequently, respondent Nos.4 and 5
filed a revision petition before the Joint Director in
R.P.No.REV/SR-22/2015-16. By the impugned order dated
21.07.2016 (Annexure-F), the Joint Director allowed the
revision and set aside the order of the Deputy Director.
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this
Court.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned order suffers from serious material
irregularity and is contrary to Sections 128 and 129 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). It is
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2306
HC-KAR
submitted that respondent No.2 exceeded jurisdiction by
examining the validity of the allotment and sale deed, which
falls exclusively within the domain of the competent Civil
Court. It is submitted that the revenue authorities are
bound to effect mutation entry based on a registered sale
deed, subject to outcome of the civil proceedings, if any.
4. The impugned order has been passed in violation
of the principles of natural justice and without proper
appreciation of the title documents. The Joint Director has
virtually adjudicated title in summary revision proceedings,
which is impermissible in law.
5. The private respondents though have been
served with a notice, they have chosen to remain absent.
6. This Court has carefully considered the rival
submissions and perused the material on record.
7. The scope of mutation proceedings under
Sections 128 and 129 of the Act is limited to recording
entries based on the acquisition of rights. The petitioner has
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2306
HC-KAR
produced register sale deed dated 12.02.2013. When the
acquisition of right is based on a registered instrument, the
revenue authorities are required to effect mutation entries,
subject to the result of any civil proceedings. The Joint
Director, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, has
examined the validity of allotment and title falling from
earlier transaction. Such an exercise amounts to
adjudication of title.
8. It is well settled that the revenue authorities
cannot adjudicate disputed questions of title and the entries
in the revenue records, do not confer right or extinguish
title. If the respondents dispute the petitioner's title, the
proper remedy is to approach the competent Civil Court.
Therefore, the impugned order suffers from jurisdictional
error and warrants interference. Accordingly, this Court
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The writ petition is allowed.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:2306
HC-KAR
ii. The order dated 21.07.2016 passed by
respondent No.2- Joint Director of Land City
Survey North Zone, Belagavi (Annexure-F) is
hereby quashed.
iii. The order dated 18.11.2013, passed by the
Deputy Director of Land Records (Annexure-B)
stands restored.
iv. It is made clear that this order shall not preclude
the parties from establishing their title before the
competent Civil Court, if so advised in
accordance with law and the mutation entries
would be subject to the result of any Civil Court
proceedings.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
AT
Ct:VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36
