SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 21514

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
JYOTI M
NAFEELA W/O ABDULMMUNAF SAYED – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER – Respondent
WP 107945/2017



##PAGE1##

- 1 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4813 WP No. 107945 of 2017

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 107945 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:

NAFEELA W/O. ABDULMUNAF SAYED, AGE: 58 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: JANATA PLOT,

MUDHOL, TAL: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BAGALKOTE DISTRICT,

BAGALKOT.

2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, JAMAKHANDI TALUKA, JAMAKHANDI,

DIST: BAGALKOTE.

Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R 3. THE TAHASILDAR, MUDHOL,

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA JAMAKHANDI TALUKA,

JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOTE.

4. NASEER AHMAD @ NAZIR AHMED S/O. SAYEDSAB SAYED,

AGE: 52 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE ELECTRICITY DEPARTMENT,

ELECTRICITY QUARTERS, NEAR ST. XAVIERS COLLEGE,

MAPUSA GOA-403507.

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4813 WP No. 107945 of 2017

HC-KAR

5. MEHABOOBI W/O. NISSAR AHMED SAYED,

AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

GLBC COLONY, MAHALINGPUR ROAD,

MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

6. ALTAF S/O. NISSAR AHMED SAYED, AGE: 22 YEARS,

OCC: NIL, GLBC COLONY MAHALINGPUR ROAD,

MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.

7. ASEEFA W/O. ISHRAD ENGINEER AGE: 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK,

R/O: MOMIN GALLI, JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

8. ANISA W/O. MOHAMMAD RAFIQ SHAIKH AGE: 25 YEARS,

OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O: DARGA COLONY,

JAMAKHANDI, DIST: BAGALKOT.

9. KHAJAMAINUDDIN S/O. NISSAR AHMED SAYED, AGE: 28 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE,

R/O: GLBC DIVISION NO.3, BILAGI, TAL: BILAGI,

DIST: BAGALKOT.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.MALA.B.BHUTE, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI.HARISH.S.MAIGUR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R9)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4813 WP No. 107945 of 2017

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Sri.S.B.Hebballi., counsel for the petitioner and Smt.Mala

B.Bhute., Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to

3 have appeared in person.

2. The Writ Petition is filed seeking the following

prayers:

“A) A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 30.06.2016 passed by the respondent No.2 in No.RTS/AP-90/2014-15 and in No.RTS-AP-91/2014-15; copies of which are produced

herein as per Annexures J and N, respectively;

B) A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 11.05.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 in No.RP/41/2016 and in No.RP/40/2016; copies of which are produced herein as per Annexures L and

P, respectively;

C) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as deemed and proper be granted.”

3. The short facts are as follows:

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the

order dated 30.06.2016 passed by respondent No.2 and the order dated 11.05.2017 passed by respondent No.1, whereby the mutation entries in respect of the subject land have been

confirmed in favour of respondents 4 to 9.

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

NC: 2026:KHC-D:4813 WP No. 107945 of 2017

HC-KAR

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s husband

had purchased the subject land under a registered sale deed dated 13.07.1984. Upon his demise on 12.11.2009, the petitioner, being his wife, succeeded to the estate. Consequent thereto, a Legal Heirs’ Certificate was issued in her favour by the

Tahasildar on 30.12.2009.

It is the case of the petitioner that the brother of her

husband and respondents 5 to 9, claiming as legal representatives of another brother, got their names entered in the revenue records vide Mutation Entry No.10517 dated 28.07.1994, without notice to the petitioner’s husband. The said mutation entries were challenged by the petitioner’s husband before the Appellate Authority, which came to be rejected. Thereafter, revisions preferred before the District Collector were

also dismissed, confirming the orders of the Appellate Authority.

Counsel for respondents 4 to 9, in support of his

submissions, placed reliance upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top