Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Karnataka at Dharwad, Single Bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde dismissed a writ petition challenging a revenue revision order that had cancelled a mutation entry made on the basis of a disputed will and directed that revenue records reflect the natural heirs, leaving title issues to be decided in civil court. The petitioner, claiming rights as a legatee, sought restoration of the will-based mutation, while the contesting private parties disputed the will. While upholding the revenue authority’s cancellation, the Court suggested that civil courts be empowered to grant interim relief staying mutation orders under the State Land Revenue framework in possession or title disputes, to reduce parallel proceedings and assist litigants.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 seeking certiorari against an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The impugned order set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order which had confirmed the Tahasildar’s certification of a mutation entry based on a Will described as disputed.

Also Read: Principal Employers Must Prefer Displaced Contract Workers When Hiring Regular Workmen; Supreme Court

The petitioner claimed as a legatee under the Will and sought restoration of the mutation entry based on the Will. The petitioner’s contention was that the Tahasildar and the Assistant Commissioner were prima facie satisfied regarding execution of the Will and had certified mutation “subject of course, to the final verdict of the Civil Court,” and that the Deputy Commissioner could not have set aside those orders under Section 136(3).

The contesting respondents stated that a civil suit had been filed challenging the Will and that the suit had been decreed with a finding that the Will was not proved. The Court referred to Section 135 of the Act, 1964 and its proviso concerning suits relating to entries in records under Chapter XI.

The Court recorded that “This petition is filed assailing the order dated 29.09.2020 by First Respondent-Deputy Commissioner, in exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.”

On the nature of the revenue orders, it stated: “the Deputy Commissioner has set-aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, who in turn had confirmed the Tahasildar’s order, certifying the mutation based on the disputed Will.” It also recorded: “the Deputy Commissioner has cancelled the mutation based on the Will, and directed that entry to be made in the names of the natural heirs.”

Addressing the parties’ submissions, the Court noted the petitioner’s position that “the Tahasildar and Assistant Commissioner were prima facie satisfied with the execution of the Will and rightly certified the mutation based on the Will, subject of course, to the final verdict of the Civil Court.” It recorded the contesting respondents’ submission that “the respondents had filed suit… challenging the alleged Will. The said suit is decreed holding that the alleged Will is not proved.”

On jurisdiction, the Court stated: “It is settled in terms of various authoritative judgments, that the Revenue Authorities do not have the jurisdiction to decide the claims based on the Will/Testament.” It added: “It is for the Civil Court to adjudicate the validity or otherwise of the Will/testament.” Applying that position, the Court stated: “the Tahasildar and the Assistant Commissioner could not have certified the mutation based on the disputed Will.”

The Court then referred to Section 135, reproducing it, including: “No suit shall lie against the State Government or any officer of the State Government in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any record or register that is maintained under this Chapter…” and the proviso allowing a suit for declaration of right. It recorded: “Section 135 of the Act, 1964, prohibits the suit against the State Government or any Officer of the State Government, in respect of a claim to have an entry made in any record or register maintained under Chapter-XI.” It further stated: “the proviso to Section 135 of the Act, 1964 provides that any party, aggrieved by an entry… may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny the title or possession.”

The Court observed: “it is apparent that the dispute relating to possession or title over the immovable property affected by any mutation has to be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court.” It recorded the Full Bench position that parties “need not exhaust the remedies of appeal and revision before filing the suit as provided under proviso to Section 135 of the Act, 1964 whenever the dispute arises as to the title and possession of immovable property.”

The Court also recorded broader observations about mutation litigation: “parties are approaching the Revenue Authorities… by filing an appeal… and a revision…” and that “Innumerable writ petitions are filed despite a specific provision under Section 135 of the Act, 1964.” It stated: “The High Court… is not adjudicating the title and possession of the parties. Same has to be decided by the competent Civil Court.”

Also Read: Absence Of Section 45 UAPA Sanction For A Particular Accused Does Not Bar Charge Framing; Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Alleged PFI Member

The Court ordered: “The writ petition is dismissed. The Registry to send the copy of order to the Chairman, the Karnataka State Law Commission, the Principal Secretary to Department of Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation and also the Principal Secretary to the Department of Revenue.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. Prashant F. Goudar, Advocate.

For the Respondents: Smt. Mala B. Bhute, AGA; Sri. Girish A. Yadwad, Advocate

Case Title: Shri. Rukmanna v. The Deputy Commissioner and Others
Neutral Citation: NC: 2025: KHC-D:16802
Case Number: Writ Petition No.100504 of 2021
Bench: Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde