Karnataka High Court
Uddawwa W/O Kempanna Harijan vs Yallawwa W/O Hanamant Heddari on 2 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1386
WP No. 100543 of 2026
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 100543 OF 2026 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
UDDAWWA W/O. KEMPANNA HARIJAN,
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. UDAGATTI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK,
NOW AT AKKIMARDI, TQ. MUDHOL,
DISTRICT. BAGALKOT-590 001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VINAY S. KOUJALAGI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. YALLAWWA W/O HANAMANT HEDDARI,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
R/O. HULLYAL VILLAGE, TQ. JAMAKHANDI,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591 301.
2. SMT. PUTALAWWA W/O DURGAPPA TALAWAR,
Digitally
signed by
MANJANNA E
AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Location:
E
HIGH COURT
MANJANNA OF
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
R/O. UDAGATTI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK-591 307,
DIST. BELAGAVI.
BENCH
Date:
2026.02.11
14:40:00
+0530
3. SMT. LAXMAWWA W/O DURGAPPA PUJARI,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
R/O. KALLOLI VILLAGE, TQ. GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-591 307.
4. SHRI RANGAPPA HANAMANTAPPA BHAGANNAVAR,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. UDAGATTI VILLAGE,
TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 307.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1386
WP No. 100543 of 2026
HC-KAR
5. THE TAHSILDAR,
GRADE-II, GOKAK,
DIST. BELAGAVI-590 001.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BELAGAVI-590 001.
7. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
BELAGAVI-590 001.
8. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 307.
9. THE SUB-REGISTRAR,
OFFICE OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR,
GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI-591 307.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NANDINI B. SOMAPUR, AGA FOR R5 TO R9)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 07.04.2022 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.6
IN RB/RTA/91/18-19 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-F AND
CONSEQUENTLY ME NO.3408, MR NO.181/2008-09, MR
49/2017-18 AND ME NO.1379 OF UDAGATTI VILLAGE IN GOKAK
TALUKA ORDER DATED 07.04.2022 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.6 IN RB/RTA/91/18-19 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-F AND THE MUTATION ENTRY NUMBERS BEARING
ME NO.3408, MR NO.181/2008-09, MR 49/2017-18 AND ME
NO.1379 OF UDAGATTI VILLAGE IN GOKAK TALUKA PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-B, C, D AND E RESPECTIVELY IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1386
WP No. 100543 of 2026
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has called in question the order dated 07.04.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi and the consequential mutation entries bearing ME Nos.3408 and 1379 and MR Nos.181/2008-09 and 49/2017-18 in respect of land bearing RS No.26/4 of Udagatti village in Gokak Taluk, Belagavi District.
2. Brief facts;
The land bearing RS No.26/4 measuring 5 acres 5 guntas originally stood in the names of the ancestors of the petitioner. Subsequently, respondent Nos.1 to 3 claim rights over the said land on the basis of the grant made in favour of their predecessor, pursuant to which their names came to be entered in the revenue records. Based on such grant, mutation entries were effected, and thereafter the land was divided into hissa numbers and further alienations were made. The petitioner questioned the mutation entries before the revenue authorities by filing revision petition. The Deputy Commissioner by order dated 07.04.2022 dismissed the revision petition inter alia on the -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:1386 WP No. 100543 of 2026 HC-KAR ground of delay and upheld the mutation entries, aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the mutation entries are illegal, arbitrary and having certified without conducting a proper enquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing. It is further contended that the revenue authorities failed to verify the authenticity of the documents relied upon by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and that the entire exercise is vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. On these grounds, the petitioner seeks to interfere with the order of the Deputy Commissioner and the consequential revenue entries.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents-State submits that the mutation entries flow from a grant made in favour of the predecessors of respondent Nos.1 to 3. It is contended that the grant itself has never been questioned or challenged by the petitioner before any competent forum and so long as the grant stands, the consequential mutation entries cannot be set aside in a writ proceedings.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1386 WP No. 100543 of 2026 HC-KAR
5. This Court has carefully considered the rival submission and perused the material on record.
6. The land in question was granted by the competent authority in favour of Gangawwa D/o. Durgappa Talwar, who is the predecessor of respondent Nos.1 to 3. The Mutation entries impugned in the present writ petition are the consequential entries made pursuant to the grant. Significantly, the petitioner has not challenged the grant either before the competent authority or before any judicial forum. In the absence of any challenge to the foundational grant, the consequential mutation entry cannot be termed as illegal or arbitrary.
7. It is well settled that mutation entries are only fiscal entries made for the purpose of revenue administration and do not confer or extinguish title. When the very source of right namely the grant, is not under challenge, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, cannot sit in appeal over revenue entries which merely reflect the effect of such grant.
8. The allegation of violation of principles of natural justice is also not accepted in the facts of the present case, as the petitioner seeks indirectly to unsettle rights flowing from a -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:1386 WP No. 100543 of 2026 HC-KAR grant which has attained finality. Any dispute relating to title or validity of the documents relied upon by the respondents is a matter that requires adjudication before the competent Civil Court and not in the proceedings under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The Deputy Commissioner has, therefore, committed no jurisdictional error in dismissing the revision petition and in certifying the mutation entry. No interference is warranted. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
9. It is made clear that the dismissal of the writ petition shall not preclude the petitioner from working out her remedies, if any, before the appropriate Civil forum in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUSTICE K.S.HEMALEKHA PJ/CT:VH LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 23