Karnataka High Court
Sushilabai Died Shankargouda Died A) ... vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors on 18 November, 2025
Author: M.G.S.Kamal
Bench: M.G.S.Kamal
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6935
WP No. 202809 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 202809 OF 2024 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. SUSHILABAI W/O BASALINGAPPA PATIL,
DIED BY LRS.
2. SHANKARGOUDA S/O LINGANAGOUDA PATIL,
SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS.
2(A) SHARANAGOUDA S/O SHANKARAGOUDA,
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KEMBHAVI, TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST. YADAGIR-585224.
2(B) MALLANGOUDA S/O SHANKARGOUDA,
Digitally signed AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
by SACHIN R/O KEMBHAVI, TQ. SHORAPUR,
Location: HIGH DIST. YADAGIR-585224.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2(C) SHIVANAGOUD S/O SHANKARGOUDA,
AGE:46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. KEMBHAVI, TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST. YADAGIR-585224.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAVINDRA H. BABALESHWAR, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6935
WP No. 202809 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
YADAGIR DISTRICT,
YADAGIR-585201.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
YADAGIR DISTRICT,
YADAGIR-585201.
3. BASALINGAMMA
W/O SIDDANNAOGUDA PATIL,
AGE: 25 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. PATTEPUR VILLAGE, TQ. SHORAPUR,
DIST. YADAGIR-585224.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHESHADRI JAISHANKAR M., AGA FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A)
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION BY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED
29.09.2023 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 IN REVISION PETITION
NO.KAM/RP/15/2018-19 VIDE ANNEXURE-F.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:6935
WP No. 202809 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S.KAMAL) Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order produced at Annexure-F passed by respondent No.1
- Deputy Commissioner by which the revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 136(3) of Land Revenue Act, 1964 has been rejected on the premise that the suit in O.S.No.23/2017 filed by respondent No.3-Basilingamma had been decreed, cancelling the deed of sale dated 23.12.2015, which is confirmed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its order dated 15.09.2021 passed in R.F.A.No.200029/2018 dismissing the appeal filed to the petitioner No.1 herein.
2. Counsel for the petitioner after arguing the matter for sometimes submits that after the order of dismissal passed in the regular first appeal by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in R.F.A.No.200029/2018 on 15.09.2021, the petitioners herein have obtained a deed of rectification confirming their entitlement of the property -4- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6935 WP No. 202809 of 2024 HC-KAR as per the settlement deed produced at Annexure-B1. He also refers to the last portion of paragraph 9 of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.200029/2018 dated 15.09.2025 wherein this Court had observed as under :
"Without having a title, defendant No.1 has executed registered deed of sale in favour of defendant No.2 on 23.12.2015, in respect of suit property. Hence, the defendant No.2 has not acquired any title over the suit property under the said registered sale-deed. Defendant No.1 is the owner of Sy.No.2/3 towards eastern side. If at all defendant No.2 has got any grievance, the defendant No.2 can get the same rectified by executing a rectification deed."
3. He further submits despite the petitioners having rectified their documents, the Tasildar is declining to consider the application filed by the petitioner on the premise that the order impugned passed by the Deputy Commissioner is still operative and not set-aside. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submits that if the petitioners have -5- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6935 WP No. 202809 of 2024 HC-KAR rectified the error in the deed of sale, and if the same is in accordance with law, the application to be filed by the petitioner will be considered in accordance with law.
5. Heard. Perused the records.
6. The order impugned is passed in the light of the material placed before respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner, namely judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.23/2017 and judgment and decree passed by Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA No.200029/2018, wherein it was held that the petitioners had no right over the property belonging to respondent No.3. As such, no error can be found with the order passed by the respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner. As such, there is no requirement of setting aside the said order.
7. However, since the counsel for the petitioners has submitted the subsequent to passing of the judgment and decree passed in RFA No.200029/2018 with observation as extracted above, a rectification deed has -6- NC: 2025:KHC-K:6935 WP No. 202809 of 2024 HC-KAR been executed in conformity with the rights of the parties as determined in the suit, the petitioners are at liberty to file a fresh application furnishing said deed of rectification as submitted.
8. Notwithstanding the order passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner as above, the Tasildar shall consider the same in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders within outer limit of 90 days from the date of submission of such application.
9. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
(M.G.S.KAMAL) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6 CT:PK