ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 23.01.2025 passed by respondent No.1- Deputy Commissioner, produced as per Annexure-A, and also to quash the Mutation Entry No.260/1982-83 dated 03.05.1983 effected by respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Hadagali, produced as per Annexure-B.

2. Heard Sri. J.S.Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.T.Hanumareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.Manjunath G. Patil, learned counsel for Caveat/respondent No.4. Perused the materials on record.

3. It is the contention of the contesting respondents that their father entered into an agreement to sell in the year 1985, in respect of the land in question and on the basis of the same, his name was mutated in the record of rights as per M.E.No.260/1982-83. The said entry was challenged by the petitioner and it was set aside by respondent No.2-Assistant Commissioner, Hadagali. Being aggrieved by the same, the contesting respondents have approached the Deputy Commissioner by preferring an appeal, which came to be allowed and the impugned order produced as per Annexure-A was passed.

4. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the agreement to sell relied on by the respondent will not create any right over the property, except the right to seek specific performance of contract. This position of law is very well-settled. Mere agreement to sell will not entitle the respondent to get his name entered in the record of rights. At the most, he can seek specific performance of contract against the person who executed the agreement to sell.

5. It is an admitted fact that there was a suit for partition in O.S.No.121/2010 filed by the members of the family and that the contesting respondent is arrayed as defendant No.10 in the said suit. It is stated that the said suit is already compromised between the family members and the suit was accordingly decreed. However, defendant No.10 in the said suit filed counter claim by filing written statement, claiming specific performance of contract. Therefore, the suit in respect of the counter claim is still pending consideration.

6. The Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order solely on the ground that since the suit for specific performance is pending consideration before the Civil Court, the disputed mutation entry is to be restored. The finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner cannot be accepted as mere act of entering into an agreement to sell, or mere filing of suit for specific performance of contract will not entitle the contesting respondents to enter their names in the record of rights. Hence, I am of the opinion that the impugned order as per Annexure-A is liable to be set aside and the petition requires to be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER (i) The petition is allowed (ii) The impugned order dated 23.01.2025 in Kam. Appeal/80/2024-25 passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A, is quashed.

(iii) Consequently, Mutation Entry No.260/82-83 dated 03.05.1983 made by respondent No.3- Tahsildar, Hadagali vide Annexure-B, is set aside.