Karnataka High Court
Smt Rathnamma vs Deputy Commissioner on 9 March, 2020
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B. Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION No. 5461/2020 (KLR)
BETWEEN :
--------------
1. Smt. Rathnamma
W/o. late Venkataswamy
Aged about 60 years
2. Smt. Pravathamma
W/o. late B.Y. Chinnanna
Aged about 55 years
3. Smt. Chinnakka
D/o. late Yellappa
Aged about 60 years
4. Sri. Muniraju C
S/o. late B.Y. Chinnanna
Aged about 43 years
5. Smt. Sharadhamma
D/o. late Yellappa
Aged about 50 years
Petitioner Nos. 1 to 6 are
R/a. No. 72
Bhovipalya
2
Mahalakshmipuram
Bengaluru - 560 086. ... PETITIONERS
(By Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, Adv.)
AND :
-------
1. Deputy Commissioner
Bengaluru Urban District
Bengaluru North Sub Division
Bengaluru - 560 009.
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Bengaluru North Sub Division
K.G. Road
Bengaluru - 560 009.
3. The Tahsildar
Bengaluru North
K.G. Road
Bengaluru - 560 009.
4. V. Chandrashekar
S/o. K. Veeranna
Aged about 55 years
5. Sri. Shree Shyla
S/o. K. Veeranna
Aged about 71 years
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5
Are R/a. Kariobanahalli
Village, Nagasandra Post
3
Yeshwanthapura Hobli
Bengaluru North Taluk - 560 022. ... RESPONDENTS
(By Sri. Y.D. Harsha, AGA)
---
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the
order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru in
revision petition No. 67/2019 at Annexure A and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing
this day, the Court passed the following;
ORDER
Learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
2. The present writ petition is filed by the petitioners for a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in revision petition No. 67/2019 reversing the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. (BN) No. 109/2018 consequently the order of mutation in M.R. No. 1/2000-01 and M.R. No. 95/2004-05.
4
3. It is the case of the petitioners that the property originally belonged to one Yallappa son of Venkata Bhovi @ Chenga Bhovi who acquired right, title, interest, ownership and possession of the land in question by virtue of the gift deed dated 05.06.1968 executed by one Venkataswamy Bhovi. Accordingly mutation came to be transferred in the name of Sri. Yallappa. Sri. Yallappa died intestate leaving behind two sons by name Sri. Venkataswamy, Chinnanna and daughters Smt. Chinnakka and Smt. Sharadhamma. Petitioners are the legal representatives of the said Yallappa. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 taking undue advantage of the illiteracy of the petitioners got the mutation entered in their names in respect of the property in question. Therefore, the petitioners filed an appeal in R.A. (BN) No. 109/2018 before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner after hearing both the parties has allowed the appeal and directed respondent No. 3 - Tahsildar, Bengaluru North taluk to consider the registered gift deed dated 05.06.1968 and take necessary steps to 5 enter the names of the petitioners in the mutation register as per their inheritance rights subsequent to the death of their father in respect of lands bearing survey No. 73 measuring 1 acre 01 guntas of Kariobanahalli, Yelahanka, Bengaluru North taluk.
4. Against the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 67/2019. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing both the parties and considering the material on record by impugned order dated 20.02.2020 allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Consequently confirmed the mutation entries made by the Tahsildar in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Hence, the present petition is filed for the relief sought for.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis and perused the material on record carefully. 6
6. Sri. V.B. Shivakumar, learned counsel for petitioners contended with vehemence that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is erroneous, contrary to the material on record and cannot be sustained. He further contended that the Deputy Commissioner while passing the impugned order has ignored the registered gift deed dated 05.06.1968 made in favour of father of the present petitioners and proceeded to allow the revision petition only on the basis of the registered sale deed dated 22.01.1996 in favour of respondent Nos. 4 and 5. He further contended that the registered gift deed is dated 05.06.1968 and for argument sake if it is considered the gift deed is the oldest document and the sale deed is dated 22.01.1996 and it is the latest document and presumption has to be drawn under Section 90 of the Evidence Act and therefore, the sale deed relied upon by the Deputy Commissioner while passing the impugned order is latest 7 document. The Deputy Commissioner ought to have relied upon the oldest document - the registered gift deed of the year 1968. Therefore, he sought to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner.
7. Sri. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate, on taking notice sought to justify the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner. He further contended that the petitioners are claiming their right in respect of the property in question under the registered gift deed dated 05.06.1968. For more than 50 years they have kept quite and they have not taken any care. For the first time, after 50 years from the date of registered gift deed, they approached the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner without considering the subsequent transactions in respect of the property in question has proceeded to allow the appeal. Therefore, the same is rightly reversed by the Deputy Commissioner based on the registered sale deed dated 22.01.1996. Therefore, learned 8 Additional Government Advocate sought to dismiss the petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is clear that the present petitioners are claiming their right in respect of the property in question through their father Yallappa son of Venkata Bhovi @ Chenga Bhovi under registered gift deed dated 05.06.1968. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are claiming their right in respect of the property in question under registered sale deed dated 22.01.1986. It is also not in dispute that though the petitioners are claiming their rights under the registered gift deed dated 05.06.1968, for the first time they have filed appeal before the Assistant Commissioner after lapse of more than 50 years. The Assistant Commissioner without verifying what happened in between from the year 1968 to 2018 proceeded to allow the appeal and directed the Tahsildar to consider the registered gift deed dated 05.06.1968 and 9 enter the names of the present petitioners in the mutation register.
9. The Deputy Commissioner, on revision filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has recorded a finding that the present petitioners are trying to claim their right on the basis of gift deed dated 05.06.1968 and they approached the Assistant Commissioner and he directed to Tahsildar to enter the names of the petitioners after lapse of more than 50 years. The revenue Courts cannot alter or disturb the revenue entries which are standing for long period without orders or decrees of the competent Civil Court. If the petitioners have got right they have to prove and establish the same before the competent Civil Court.
10. Since both the parties are claiming their right in respect of the property in question under the registered gift deed and registered sale deed, it is always open for the aggrieved party, including the petitioners herein, to approach the competent Civil Court to establish their right 10 and title in respect of the property in question and for grant of consequential reliefs. It is needless to observe that any decree to be passed by the competent Civil Court would be always binding on the parties to the lis and also the revenue authorities. In view of the above, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 based on the latest sale deed dated 22.01.1996 is in accordance with law.
11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the case advanced by both the parties. It is open for the aggrieved party to establish their right before the competent forum, if so advised.
12. In view of the above, petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to establish their right before the competent civil Court. Any decree to be passed in the suit to be filed by the parties will be binding on both the parties 11 to the lis and the revenue authorities. Any observation made by Deputy Commissioner while disposing of the revision petition will not come in the way of the petitioners to establish their rights in respect of the immovable property in question before the competent civil Court in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE LRS.