[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Nafeela W/O Abdulmmunaf Sayed vs The Deputy Commissioner on 27 March, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4813
WP No. 107945 of 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
WRIT PETITION NO. 107945 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
NAFEELA W/O. ABDULMUNAF SAYED,
AGE: 58 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: JANATA PLOT,
MUDHOL, TAL: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT,
BAGALKOT.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
JAMAKHANDI TALUKA,
JAMAKHANDI,
Digitally signed
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
by
PREMCHANDRA
MR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
3. THE TAHASILDAR, MUDHOL,
KARNATAKA
JAMAKHANDI TALUKA,
JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOTE.
4. NASEER AHMAD @ NAZIR AHMED
S/O. SAYEDSAB SAYED,
AGE: 52 YEARS,
OCC: SERVICE ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT,
ELECTRICITY QUARTERS,
NEAR ST. XAVIERS COLLEGE,
MAPUSA GOA-403507.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4813
WP No. 107945 of 2017
HC-KAR
5. MEHABOOBI
W/O. NISSAR AHMED SAYED,
AGE: 45 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
GLBC COLONY,
MAHALINGPUR ROAD,
MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
6. ALTAF S/O. NISSAR AHMED SAYED,
AGE: 22 YEARS,
OCC: NIL, GLBC COLONY
MAHALINGPUR ROAD,
MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
7. ASEEFA W/O. ISHRAD ENGINEER
AGE: 24 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: MOMIN GALLI,
JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
8. ANISA W/O. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ SHAIKH
AGE: 25 YEARS,
OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O: DARGA COLONY,
JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
9. KHAJAMAINUDDIN
S/O. NISSAR AHMED SAYED,
AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,
R/O: GLBC DIVISION NO.3,
BILAGI, TAL: BILAGI,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.MALA.B.BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI.HARISH.S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R9)
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:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4813
WP No. 107945 of 2017
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Sri.S.B.Hebballi., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Mala
B.Bhute., Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to
3 have appeared in person.
2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following
prayers:
"A) A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned orders dated 30.06.2016 passed by the
respondent No.2 in No.RTS/AP-90/2014-15 and in
No.RTS-AP-91/2014-15; copies of which are produced
herein as per Annexures J and N, respectively;
B) A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned
orders dated 11.05.2017 passed by the respondent
No.1 in No.RP/41/2016 and in No.RP/40/2016; copies
of which are produced herein as per Annexures L and
P, respectively;
C) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as
deemed and proper be granted."
3. The short facts are as follows:
The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the
order dated 30.06.2016 passed by respondent No.2 and the
order dated 11.05.2017 passed by respondent No.1, whereby
the mutation entries in respect of the subject land have been
confirmed in favour of respondents 4 to 9.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4813
HC-KAR
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband
had purchased the subject land under a registered sale deed
dated 13.07.1984. Upon his demise on 12.11.2009, the
petitioner, being his wife, succeeded to the estate. Consequent
thereto, a Legal Heirs' Certificate was issued in her favour by the
Tahasildar on 30.12.2009.
It is the case of the petitioner that the brother of her
husband and respondents 5 to 9, claiming as legal
representatives of another brother, got their names entered in
the revenue records vide Mutation Entry No.10517 dated
28.07.1994, without notice to the petitioner's husband. The said
mutation entries were challenged by the petitioner's husband
before the Appellate Authority, which came to be rejected.
Thereafter, revisions preferred before the District Collector were
also dismissed, confirming the orders of the Appellate Authority.
Counsel for respondents 4 to 9, in support of his
submissions, placed reliance upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in FAKIRASAB S/O ANNASAB BHAGAWAN vs.
SYEDUSAB S/O RAJASAB BHAGAWAN AND OTHERS in MFA
No.4129/2004, disposed of on 11.08.2004.
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4813
HC-KAR
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record.
Upon consideration of the matter, it is evident that the
petitioner's husband had acquired title to the subject property
under a registered sale deed dated 13.07.1984. After his death,
the petitioner, being his sole legal heir, is entitled to succeed to
the said property. The revenue authorities, while passing the
impugned orders, have failed to take into consideration the
registered sale deed and have erroneously entered the names of
the brother of the deceased and the legal representatives of
another brother in the revenue records.
It is also pertinent to note that the parties are governed by
Mohammedans Law, under which there is no concept of joint
family property as understood in Hindu Law. Therefore, the claim
of respondents 4 to 9 on the basis of joint family succession is
unsustainable.
The revenue authorities are bound to effect mutation
entries in accordance with the title documents. In the present
case, the mutation entries made in favour of respondents 4 to 9
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4813
HC-KAR
are contrary to the registered sale deed and are therefore liable
to be interfered with.
5. In view of the above, the order dated 30.06.2016
passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 11.05.2017
passed by respondent No.1 are hereby set aside. The
respondents are directed to correct the revenue records by
entering the name of the petitioner as the rightful owner of the
subject property in accordance with the registered sale deed
dated 13.07.1984 and the Legal Heirs' Certificate dated
30.12.2009, within a period of four (4) weeks from the receipt of
a certified copy of this order.
Counsel for respondents 4 to 9 placed reliance on the
decision referred to supra. But I do not think that the law is in
doubt. Each decision turns on its own facts. The present case is
also tested in the light of the aforesaid decision.
6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed.
Sd/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
RH/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26
