Karnataka High Court
Shri Imamkhan Rehamankhan ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 September, 2025
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165
WP No. 104011 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 104011 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI IMAMKHAN REHAMANKHAN
SHERKHANWALE @ INAMDAR
AGE: ABOUT 80 YEARS
OCC.: NIL
R/O: CTS NO 3668, KHANJAR GALLI
BELAGAVI - 590 002
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING
Digitally signed BENGALURU - 560 001
by GIRIJA A.
BYAHATTI 2. THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
Location: High BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI - 590 002
Court of
Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench, 3. THE ADLR
Dharwad CITY SURVEYOR
BELAGAVI - 590 002
4. THE DDLR
(TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO COLLECTOR)
BELAGAVI - 590 002
5. MEHABOOB
S/O MASTAN KALLOLI
AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC.: NIL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165
WP No. 104011 of 2024
HC-KAR
R/O: 3703/6, KHANJAR GALLI
BELAGAVI - 590 002
6. TANVEER
S/O KAMALPASHA INAMDAR
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O: PLOT NO.107, SECTOR NO.5
SHREE NAGAR
BELAGAVI - 590 002
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI TEJPAL A. KAMAL AND
SRI MAHESH N. KULKARNI, ADVOCATES FOR R5)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED
19.10.2022 BEARING NO.KRA.CTS/MISC/SR-61+64+77/2022-23
ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.3 (ADLR) WHICH IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-H AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dated 19.10.2022 bearing No.KRA.CTS/MISC/SR-61+64+77/2022-23 issued by the Respondent No.3 (ADLR) which is produced at Annexure-H;
b. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned endorsement dated 12.12.2022 bearing No.KRA.THAM/KAANIVAHI-606/2022-23 issued by the Respondent No.4 (DDLR) which is produced at Annexure-J;-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR c. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 15.02.2024 passed the (JDLR) Respondent No.2 REV/SR-48/2022-23 at Annexure- L;
d. Issue or pass any other order which deemed fit in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement dated 19.10.2022 issued by Respondent No.3 - ADLR rejecting the request of the Petitioner for entry of the name of Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale in respect of properties bearing CTS No 3601, 3608, 3610, 3618, 3651, 3652A, 3651/1B, 3651/B2, 3651/3A, 3651/3B, 3651/4B, 3651/1, 3651/1C, 3651/1D, 3651/1E, 3653/A 3653/B, 3653/C 3653/D, 3654/A1, 3654/A1, 3654/1B, 3654/1C, 3654/2, 3655, 3656/AB, 3656/C, 3670/A, 3670/B, 3676, 3679, 3680, 3687, 3657, 3658/AB, 3659, 3660, 3657/1, 3661/X62AB, 3664/A, 3664/B, 3588/9C, 3588/10A, 3588/10B, 3588/10C, 3591/A, 3592/B, 3592/1, 3593, 3595/1, 3594, 3595, 3596/1, 3596/2, 3596/3, 3597, 3597/1, 3598, 3598/A1, 3598/A2, 3598/B, 3599, 3599/1A, -4- NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR 3599/1B, 3600/AB, 3608, 3610, 3676 and 3675 situated at Khanjar Galli, Belagavi. CTS NoS.3679, 3680, 3009, 3013, 3014, 3015/A, 3015/B, 3015/C, 3016, 3017, 3018, 3019, 3020, 3021/A, 3021/B, 3022, 3023/A, 3023/B, 3024, 3025, 2937, 2938, 2940, 2941, 2945, 2944, 2933, 2935, 2947, 2952 and 2956 situated at Khade Bazar, Belagavi. CTS NoS.2712, 2712/1, 2712/2 to 2712/25, 2713/A, 2713/XB, 2717/A, 2717/XB, 2717/B1, 2717/A2A, 2717/A2B, 2717/A2C, 2717/A2, 2718, 2718/2A, 2718/2B, 2719, 2720, 2720/1, 2720/2, 2721/1, 2722, 2751, 2752, 2753, 2767/1, 2767/2, 2767/4, 2767/5, 2767/6, 2767/2, 2767/8, 2767/9, 2767/10, 2767/11, 2767/18, 2772/A, 2772/B, 2772/C, 2772/D, 2773/Α, 2773/B, 2767/18 situated at Kasai Galli, Bukhari Galli and old PB Road, Belagavi and CTS Nos.2713/A and 2713/B situated at Belagavi owned by Sri.Sherkhanewale family (detailed in Para (1) of the petition). The matter was taken up on an -5- NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR appeal before the DDLR. DDLR has rejected the said appeal vide order dated 12.12.2022. The Petitioner having approached the JDLR, the JDLR has also rejected the said review on 15.2.2024 at Annexure-L.
3. The submission of Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath, learned counsel for the Petitioner is that there are various disputes between the parties. The history of the dispute is that the properties originally belonged to Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale, he having derived title under a partition decree in O.S.No.198/1943. The said Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale expired on 16.4.1975 leaving behind his wife Smt.Meharunisa who expired on 5.8.1995. They did not have any children. The father of Respondent No.6 claimed that there was an oral gift executed by Smt.Meharunisa in his favour on 16.7.1984, which came to be reduced into writing. Alleging that -6- NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR subsequently the father of Respondent No.6 executed an oral hiba on 31.3.2003 in respect of properties in favour of Respondent No.5, Respondent No.5 is alleged to have made an application for entry of his name in the revenue records. In pursuance of which, said entries have been made in the year 2007.
4. He submits that in the suits which have been filed, namely 4.1. O.S.No.135/2021, a declaration has been sought for by the Petitioner that they are the legal heirs of deceased Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale and Meharunisa.
4.2. A suit has been filed by the Waqf Board in O.S.No.24/2016 claiming that some of the properties are part of the notification dated 18.5.1979 and therefore, they form the Waqf properties.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR 4.3. A suit in O.S.No.14/2016 which was filed by one of the family members seeking for a declaration that the gift deed dated 31.3.2003 executed by Kamalpasha Inamdar that is father of Respondent No.6 in favour of Respondent No.5 is null and void. 4.4. Another suit in O.S.No.281/2019 has been filed seeking for a decree that the oral gift deed dated 16.7.1984 alleged to have been executed by Smt.Meharunisa in favour of Kamalpasha Inamdar is illegal, null and void and consequently, the declaration that the oral gift deed dated 31.3.2003 executed by Kamalpasha Inamdar in favour of Respondent No.5 is null and void.
5. The submission is that on an earlier occasion when the Petitioner had filed applications seeking for cancellation of the names of Respondents No.5 and 6 -8- NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR in respect of properties, the same came to be considered by this Court in W.P.No.66760/2009 and other connected matters and vide order dated 7.2.2022, this Court considering that a number of suits were pending where the rights of the parties are required to be decided and in order to maintain status quo of the properties, deemed it appropriate to restore the CTS records to the name of Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale in respect to the properties subject matter of the said writ petition pending outcome of the civil suits in O.S.No.135/2021 O.S.No.24/2016 etc. He submits that it is on that basis that the application had been filed by the Petitioner before the ADLR and the ADLR was required to consider the direction which had been issued by this Court in W.P.No.66760/2009 and cause the entry of the name of Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale in respect to all the properties. His submission is that apart from the suits in -9- NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR O.S.No.135/2021 and O.S.No.24/2016, there are other suits also which are pending where these aspects have to be considered and necessary orders are required to be passed.
6. By referring to a judgment passed in O.S.No.14/2022 dated 16.8.2025 between Respondent No.5 and certain others, he submits that there is a finding which has been made in the said suit that Respondent No.5 has not been able to prove that he is the absolute owner of the suit property therein by virtue of the oral gift made by Kamalpasha Inamdar. While doing so, there is also an observation that the gift deed in favour of Kamalpasha Inamdar itself has not been proved. Hence, the question of Respondent No.5 acquiring any title over the suit property would not arise. In that background, he submits that pending consideration of the various suits pending between the parties, it would be required that the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR revenue entries are changed in the name of Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale so that the property is preserved in status quo.
7. Sri.Tejpal A.Kamal, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5 submits that the revenue entries which have been made in the name of the Respondent No.5 were way back in the year 2007. The said revenue entries have not been challenged and as such, the same could not have been challenged for the first time by submitting a representation in pursuance of the order dated 7.2.2022 in W.P.No.66760/2009. His submission is that the Petitioner as Plaintiff having filed the suit, until the Petitioner were to establish his right, title and interest, the question of disturbing the revenue entries in the name of Respondent No.5 would not arise and as such, the name of Respondent No.5 ought to continue in the revenue records. In this
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR regard, he himself has produced a copy of the plaint in O.S.No.281/2019 to contend that in the said suit when an application for injunction was filed to restrain the Respondent No.5 who was defendant therein from alienating the property, the trial Court refused such injunction and an appeal having been filed in MFA No.100883/2021, the said appeal came to be dismissed. His submission is that when the trial Court and the first Appellate Court have rejected the application for injunction, if the entries in the revenue records are changed, grave harm and injury would occur to Respondent No.5. He relies upon the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shri Ambalal Dharmachand Shah vs. Shripal Bharmappa Kittur since deceased by his LRs and others1 to contend that no application can be made to revenue authorities for change of the names in the revenue records or restoration of the 1 2017 (2) KCCR 1730
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR names in the revenue records. Thus, the official respondents have rightly rejected the application of the Petitioner. In that background, he submits that the above writ petition is required to be dismissed.
8. Heard Sri.Mallikarjunswamy B.Hiremath, Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned AGA for Respondents No.1 to 4 and Sri.Tejpal A.Kamal, learned counsel for Respondent No.5 and perused papers.
9. Though several arguments have been advanced what is required to be seen is that admittedly the properties belonged to Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale. He expired in the year 1975 leaving behind his wife Meharunisa who expired in the year 1995. It is only in the year 1984, that there is an oral gift alleged to have been executed by her in favour of Kamalpasha Inamdar. It is further alleged that Kamalpasha Inamdar in the year 2003 executed an oral hiba that is an oral gift deed in favour of Respondent No.5-
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR Mehboob. It is pursuant thereto that all the litigation has ensued. The facts and the timeline would indicate that from the date of expiry of Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale in the year 1975, there were no disputes. From the date of hiba, which is said to be executed in the year 1984, there were no disputes or entries made in the revenue records. Meharunisa having expired in the year 1995, there are no disputes or entries made in revenue records thereafter. It is only for the first time in the year 2004 after Kamalpasha Inamdar is alleged to have executed an oral gift deed in favour of Respondent No.5 that an application was filed by Kamalpasha and thereafter, revenue entries were made in the name of Respondent No.5 in the year 2007. Admittedly, there are no revenue entries made in the name of Respondent No.5-Mehboob till date. Thus, after Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale's name in the revenue records was substituted with the name of
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR Meharunisa in the year 1976, for the first time, entry of a third person's name came to be made in the year 2007. The names of the other family members had apparently been entered in the revenue records in the year 1998. Thus, the gap between each of the events being large remains to be explained.
10. Suit in O.S.No.135/2021 has been filed by the Petitioner and certain others for declaration of themselves as legal heirs of deceased Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale and Meharunisa. O.S.No.281/2019 has been filed for declaration that the oral gift deed dated 16.7.1985 executed by Smt.Meharunisa in favour of Kamalpasha Inamdar to be illegal, null and void. The further relief of declaring the oral gift dated 31.3.2003 executed by Kamalpasha Inamdar in favour of Respondent No.5-Mehboob has also been sought. A suit in O.S.No.1049/2010 which has been renumbered as O.S.No.14/2016 has been filed seeking for declaration that the gift deed dated
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR 31.3.2003 executed by Kamalpasha in favour of Respondent No.5-Mehboob is null and void.
11. Though the submission of learned counsel for Respondent No.5 is that the revenue entries have not been challenged, the fact that all these suits have been filed, one of the suits as far back as in the year 2010, would indicate that the right of Respondent No.5 has been challenged in those proceedings and those proceedings are pending consideration.
12. A Coordinate Bench of this Court taking into account the pendency of O.S.No.135/2021 and O.S.No.24/2016 had directed the restoration of the name of Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale in the CTS records of the six properties which were the subject matter of those proceedings. The reasons why the Coordinate Bench of this Court passed the said order was the title of the property as also the question of
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR the legal heirs of Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale was subject matter of O.S.No.135/2021 and O.S.No.24/2016. Now that it has been brought to the notice of this Court that there are other suits in O.S.No.281/2019, O.S.No.14/2016 etc., where the gifts are also under challenge, I am of the considered opinion that until a resolution of all these disputes is made and are sorted out, by extrapolating the reasons of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.66760/2009, status quo of all the properties would be required to be maintained. There would be no purpose in maintaining status quo with regard to a portion of the properties by letting the parties deal with the remaining properties. The issue being at large, all the issues would have to be decided by the trial Court by keeping all the properties in status quo and by safeguarding them. The only manner in which the same could be so done is by entering the name of Sri.Faridkhan
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR Sherkhanewale in the revenue records of all the properties which belonged to him pending the decision of the Civil Court in the pending suits. Hence, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is allowed.
ii) A certiorari is issued. The impugned endorsement dated 19.10.2022 issued by Respondent No.3 at Annexure-H, impugned endorsement dated 12.12.2022 issued by Respondent No.4 at Annexure-J as also impugned order dated 15.2.2024 passed by Respondent No.2 at Annexure-L are quashed.
iii) Respondent No.3 is directed to enter the name of Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale in respect to all the properties described in para (1) of the writ petition within a period
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC-D:12165 WP No. 104011 of 2024 HC-KAR of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
iv) Since all the suits are pending before the Waqf Tribunal, the Waqf Tribunal is directed to club all the suits, lead common evidence in all those suits and dispose the same as expeditiously as possible.
v) The petitioner, Respondent No.5 as also Respondent No.6 and any family members of Sri.Kamapasha Inamdar are restrained from any manner dealing with, alienating encumbering or creating any charge on the properties belonging to Sri.Faridkhan Sherkhanewale till the disposal of the said suits.
vi) Pending IAs stand disposed.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 216