[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Nagaraj Adopted S/O Hanumant Madiwal vs The Deputy Commissioner on 24 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4505
WP No. 114220 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 114220 OF 2019 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
NAGARAJ ADOPTED
S/O HANUMANT MADIWAL,
AGE: 36 YEARS,
R/O: MADIWALKERI,
HOSAKULI,
HONNAVAR TALKUK,
DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
UTTAR KANNADA DISTRICT,
KARWAR.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BHATKAL SUB-DIVISION,
BHATKAL, DIST: UTTARA KANNADA.
Digitally signed
by
PREMCHANDRA
MR 3. THE TASHILDAR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HONNAVAR TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT.
4. HONNA SUBBA MADIWAL,
AGE: MAJOR,
R/O: MADIWALKERI, HOSAKULI,
HONNAVAR TALUK, DIST: U.K.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.MALA.B.BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. A.P.HEGDE JANMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4505
WP No. 114220 of 2019
HC-KAR
THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.J.S.Shetty., counsel for the petitioner,
Smt.Mala.B.Bhute., AGA for respondents 1 to 3 and
Sri.A.P.Hegde Janmane., counsel for respondent No.4 have
appeared in person.
2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following
prayers:
"a) Issue a writ of certiorari to quash the order in
RB/RTR/CR-38/2017-18 dated 9-9-2019 passed by
the 1st respondent-The Deputy Commissioner,
Karwar, the copy of which has been produced
herewith and marked as Annexure-A and the order
dated 7-1-2016 passed by the Tashildar in
rd
RTS/D/SR-30/2014-15 the 3 respondent Tashildar
Honnavar the copy of which has been produced
herewith at Annexure-B.
b) Such other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case
may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner by
allowing this writ petition with the cost throughout in
the ends of justice and equity."
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4505
HC-KAR
3. The petitioner contends that one Smt. Manji Madiwal
was the absolute owner of the subject lands. It is further
contended that Smt. Manji had adopted the petitioner under a
registered adoption deed and had also executed a Will in his
favour. After the death of Smt. Manji on 19.07.2014, the
petitioner, claiming to be her sole legal representative, submitted
an application before the Tahsildar seeking mutation of his name
in the revenue records.
Respondent No. 4 objected to the said request, contending
that he is the natural heir of Smt. Manji. Taking note of the rival
contentions, the Tahsildar, vide order dated 07.01.2016, rejected
the claim of the petitioner for entry of his name in the revenue
records. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an
appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant
Commissioner, vide order dated 08.02.2018, set aside the order
of the Tahsildar and directed entry of the petitioner's name in the
revenue records based on the Will.
Aggrieved by the said order, Respondent No. 4 preferred a
revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy
Commissioner, vide order dated 09.09.2019, allowed the revision
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4505
HC-KAR
petition and directed mutation of the name of Respondent No. 4
on the basis of natural succession, while reserving liberty to the
petitioner to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief.
Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Counsel for the respective parties urged several
contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with
care.
5. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is produced
as Annexure-A. A perusal of the same indicates that, while
dealing with the mutation entries, the Deputy Commissioner has
recorded a finding as if Respondent No. 4 is the natural
successor of Smt. Manji. Such a determination pertains to
questions of title and succession, which fall within the exclusive
domain of the competent Civil Court. The Deputy Commissioner,
in effect, has assumed the role of a Civil Court, which is
impermissible in proceedings relating to mutation of revenue
records. On this ground, the matter requires reconsideration.
6. Accordingly, a writ of certiorari is issued. The order
dated 09.09.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is hereby
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4505
HC-KAR
quashed. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for
fresh consideration in accordance with law.
7. Resultantly, the writ petition stands allowed. The
matter is remanded for fresh consideration.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
RH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27
