Karnataka High Court
Smt.Mahadevamma W/O Balabhimappa ... vs The Assistant Commissioner And Ors on 8 June, 2017
Author: B.Veerappa
Bench: B.Veerappa
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA
WRIT PETITION NO.202999/2014 (KLR-RR-SLR)
BETWEEN
Smt Mahadevamma
W/o Balabhimappa Vasladi,
Age: 32 years, Occ: Agri.,
R/o Village Mangalur,
Tq: Shorapur, Dist: Yadgiri.
... PETITIONER
(By Sri.Shivanand Patil, Advocate.)
AND
1. The Assistant Commissioner,
Yadgiri-585201.
2. The Tahasildar,
Shorapur, Dist: Yadgiri-585223.
3. Yankamma
W/o Hanamantha Mallabadi,
Age: 55 years, Occ: Household,
R/o Peth Ammapur,
Tq. Shorapur, Dist: Yadgiri-585223.
... RESPONDENTS
(By Smt Archana Tiwari, AGA for R-1 & R-2;
Sri Krupa Sagar Patil, Advocate for R-3)
2
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER ORDER
OF LIKE NATURE AND THEREBY QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 07.03.2014 IN FILE No. SAM/KUM/HADAA/ 22/
2013-14 OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 AS AT ANNEXURE-G TO
THE WRIT PETITION AND ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER OF LIKE
NATURE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER
THE PRAYER OF THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH AND EFFECT
MUTATION IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER FOR LANDS
COVERED UNDER SALE DEED AS AT ANNEXURE-A TO THE
WRIT PETITION AND ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER, WRIT OR
DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN VIEW OF
THE FACTS AND CIRUMSTANCES OF THE CASE STATED ABOVE
IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner filed the present Writ petition to quash the impugned endorsement dated 07.03.2014 made in No. SAM/KUM/HADAA/22/2013-14 as per Annexure-G and writ of mandamus to 2nd Respondent to consider the prayer of the petitioner to effect mutation in the name of petitioner in terms of sale deed as per Annexure-A dated 29.10.2003.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased the properties more fully described in para 3 No.2 of the Writ petition under registered sale deed for valuable consideration. In pursuance of the sale deed 'J' Form was issued to effect mutation and there is no necessity for the petitioner to move for mutation, however, no mutation was carried in furtherance of 'J' Form. Therefore, the petitioner moved an application before the Tahasildar 2nd Respondent to direct the Revenue Inspector to make spot inspection and proceed in accordance with sale deed. The Tahasildar without considering the sale deed proceeded to issue endorsement mainly on the ground that there is a suit pending between the parties in O.S.No. 460/2013. Therefore, he cannot proceed with the case. Hence the present petition is filed.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
4. Sri Shivanand Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the impugned 4 endorsement issued by the Tahasildar is erroneous, contrary to material on record and contrary to the mandatory provisions of Section 128(4) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. He further contended that he purchased nine properties as mentioned in para No.2 of the Writ Petition for valuable consideration as long back as on 29.10.2003. It is the duty of the Tahasildar to enter the mutation on the basis of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner. He has not discharged his duty as contemplated. Therefore, he submits that because of inaction on the part of the Tahasildar in not following the procedure, the petitioner is before this Court. Therefore, sought to quash the impugned endorsement issued by the Tahasildar.
5. Per contra Smt Archana Tiwari, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri Krupa Sagar Patil learned counsel for Respondent No.3 submit that since the Respondent 5 No.3 filed O.S.No.460/2013 challenging the very sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner, which is pending for adjudication. Therefore, the Tahasildar is justified in issuing the endorsement. Therefore, sought to dismiss the Writ Petition.
6. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is:-
"Whether the Tahasildar is justified by issuing the impugned endorsement dated
07.06.2014 in the presence of registered sale deed dated 29.01.2003 made in favour of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case?"
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material on record carefully.6
8. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner alleges that he has purchased nine properties more fully descried in para No.2 of the Writ Petition under a registered sale deed dated 29.10.2003 for valuable consideration. The provisions of section 128 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 mandates that any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, any right as holder, occupant, owner mortgagee, landlord or tenant of the land or assignee of the rent or revenue thereof, shall report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to prescribed officer of the village within three months from the date of such acquisition, and said officer shall at once give a written acknowledgement of the receipt to the person making it. Sub-clause 4 of Section 128 of the Act clearly depicts that no document by virtue of which any person acquires a right in any land as holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant or assignee of the rent or 7 revenue thereunder, shall be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, unless the person liable to pay the registration fee also pays to the registering authority such fees as may be prescribed for making the necessary entries in the record of rights and registers referred to in Section 129; and on the registration of such a document, the registering authority shall make a report of the acquisition of the right to the prescribed officer.
9. In the present case, the petitioner claims his right under registered sale deed dated 29.10.2003 in respect of nine properties more fully mentioned in para No.2 of the Writ Petition, the Tahasildar after issuing notice to the affected parties, has proceeded to issue endorsement mainly on the ground that the suit in O.S.No. 460/2013 is pending. When there is registered sale deed and in the absence of prohibition by an interim order of the Court, it is the bounden duty of the 8 Tahasildar to consider and pass order on merits and the same has not been done in the present case. This clearly indicates that the Tahasildar has not discharged his duty as contemplated under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, thereby unnecessarily driven the petitioner before this Court. For the reasons stated supra, the issue raised in the present Writ petition has to be held in the negative holding that the Tahasildar is not justified in issuing the present endorsement dated 07.06.2014 and the same is contrary to the registered sale deed and contrary to the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act as stated supra.
10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The impugned endorsement dated 07.06.2014 issued by the Tahasildar is quashed. The Tahasildar is directed to proceed with the enquiry on the basis of the registered sale deed after giving notice to the parties 9 concerned and pass orders strictly in accordance with provisions of Section 128 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is needless to observe any orders to be passed by the Tahasildar will be always subject to the result of the O.S.No.460/2013 pending between the parties and all the parties are bound by the decree in the said suit including the Tahasildar. In the above terms the Writ Petition is disposed off.
Sd/-
JUDGE *MK