The Karnataka High Court has refused to interfere with an order cancelling a land mutation that was based on a disputed Will, holding that revenue authorities cannot decide questions of title. While dismissing the petition, the Court also made strong observations about gaps in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the growing burden of parallel litigation in land disputes.
The ruling came from Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde while deciding a writ petition filed by a farmer from Belagavi district.
Read Also:- Kerala High Court Quashes Suicide Abetment Case, Says Angry Words Alone Don’t Prove Criminal
Background of the Case
The case arose from a dispute over agricultural land in Khairwad village of Khanapur taluk, Belagavi district.
The petitioner, Rukmanna, claimed ownership based on a Will and sought mutation of revenue records in his favour. The Tahasildar accepted the claim and mutated the land entries. This decision was later confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner.
However, the private respondents-legal heirs of the original owner-challenged the Will and filed a civil suit questioning its validity. The Deputy Commissioner subsequently set aside the mutation order and directed that entries be restored in the names of the natural heirs.
Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court seeking restoration of the mutation based on the Will.
Read Also:-Delhi High Court Rejects Sameer Wankhede’s Defamation Suit Against Netflix Show ‘Ba*ds
Arguments Before the Court
The petitioner argued that:
- The Tahasildar and Assistant Commissioner had rightly accepted the Will.
- The Deputy Commissioner exceeded his powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
- Mutation should continue until a civil court finally decides the dispute.
On the other hand, the respondents pointed out that:
- A civil court had already examined the Will in a separate suit.
- The Will was found not proved.
- Revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide title based on a disputed Will.
Court’s Observations
Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde made it clear that revenue authorities cannot determine ownership rights when a Will is in dispute.
“The validity of a Will can only be decided by a competent civil court. Revenue officials have no authority to adjudicate such claims,” the Court observed.
The judge noted that mutation entries are only for fiscal purposes and do not confer ownership. Any dispute over title must be resolved through a civil suit, not revenue proceedings.
The Court also referred to earlier judgments, including the Full Bench ruling in Jayamma v. State of Karnataka, reiterating that parties need not exhaust revenue remedies when title is in dispute.
Read Also:- UGC's 2026 Anti-Discrimination Rules Face Protest by Lawyers Near Allahabad High Court
Serious Concerns Over Parallel Litigation
Beyond the immediate dispute, the Court raised broader concerns about the existing legal framework.
It noted that land disputes routinely travel from Tahasildar to Assistant Commissioner, then to Deputy Commissioner, and finally to the High Court-despite the fact that none of these authorities can decide ownership.
“The law in its present form encourages parallel proceedings and unnecessary litigation,” the Court observed.
Justice Hegde pointed out that Section 135 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act allows parties to approach civil courts, but does not empower them to stay mutation orders. This gap forces litigants to keep moving between forums.
The Court remarked that:
- Revenue proceedings often become meaningless when title disputes exist
- Civil courts alone are competent to decide ownership
- The absence of a provision for interim relief in civil suits leads to avoidable litigation
Read Also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside Odisha Land Dispute Orders, Says Section 47 CPC Misused After Decree
Court’s Decision
After examining the records and legal position, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
It upheld the Deputy Commissioner’s decision to cancel the mutation based on the disputed Will and restore entries in favour of the natural heirs.
The Court also directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to:
- The Karnataka State Law Commission
- The Department of Parliamentary Affairs
- The Department of Revenue
This was done to highlight the need for legislative reform to avoid repetitive and ineffective litigation.
Final Outcome
The writ petition was dismissed.
The mutation based on the Will remains cancelled.
The parties were left to pursue their remedies before the civil court.
Case Title: Rukmanna v. Deputy Commissioner & Others
Case Number: W.P. No. 100504 of 2021
Decision Date: December 1, 2025
