Karnataka High Court
Sri B Venkatesh S/O Late K Babu vs The Deputy Commissioner Bangalore ... on 3 April, 2009
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 'BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 34 DAY OF APRIL, 2008 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAR: EDDY WRIT PETITION Bo.28912/200503) BETWEEN: 1. SRI B VENKATESH S/O LATE K BABU | AGED ABOUT 47 7 YEARS. | 2. SMT PADMA. . W/O LATE B JAYARAMAN - AGED ABCUT 39 YEARS. 3. MASTER. SRIGHAR | an S/O LATE B JAYARAMAN AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS 4. KUMARI NADIA . : D/O LATE B JAYARAMAN 7 AGED ABCUT 15 YEARS. . KUMARI KAVITHA D/O LATE. B JAYARAMAN AGED ABCUT 12 YEARS. cc. "6, KUMARI AMBIKA D/O LATE B JAYARAMAN _ AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS. _ 7. MASTER HARIHARAN D/O LATE B JAYARAMAN .. AGED ABOUT 6 YEARS. oe Since 3 to 7 are minors, represented By their mother/ natural guardian 3S. SHRI CHELUVAIAH @ KARTYAPPA S/O LATE CHEEKLEGOWDA MAJOR. 6. SREH C BRAHMACHAR -- S/O LATE CHANDRACHARI MAJOR. 7. SHRI D JAYAPRAKASH S/O LATE DODDAIAHACHAR MAJOR. 8. SHRI MUTHURAJ S/O MUTHAIAH MAJOR, 9. SHRI NARAYANA S/O RAMAIAH MAJOR NOS. 5 TO 9 ARE RESIDING AER HAROHALLI VILLAGE, 9 HAROHALLI HOBLI a he KANAKAPURA TALUK.. ee .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI R KUMAR, GP FOR RESPONDENTS 1-3, SRI S SHEKAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS 4(A-C). M/S SOUTHERN. LAW ASSOCIATES - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT 7, SRI K VENKATA SUDHER, ADV.FOR RESPONDENTS) _-- THIS WRIT - PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 'OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER _ PASSED IN R.P.54/2004-05 DT.14,11.2005 AND ORDER PASSED IN ~-.-, DYP.23.2.2004 AND ORDER PASSED IN NO.DT.7.7.2004 PASSED BY - THE RI TO R3 RESPECTIVELY VIDE ANN A TO C BY DECLARING "THE SAME AS ILLEGAL AND OPPOSED TO LAW. "THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 12.3.2009 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS ON 3. 4.2009, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- S ORDER
Heard the counsel for the parties.
2. The facts of the case as contended : are: as follows: - . .
- Land in Survey No. 726 of. Harobslii Village. .
Kanakapura Taluk, Bangalore Rural District measuring about 26 acres 35 guntas ~ ig said" to - pave belonged to Shankaracharappa who is seid to have 'purchased the same from Subramaniyan | Wer in the year 1948.
Shankaracharappa. i pire iurn. had sok the said lands to one Chandrackar. under "'tyv0- sale deeds, dated 6.11.1950 and 15.10. 1952, respectively. Chandrachar and his legal heirs sold 2 acres of the 's Same in a favour of one Muthaiah in the year 1971 and a further extent of 5S acres 5 guntas under 3 gale deeds, | dated 177. 1987, 25.1.1968 and 24.1.1978, in favour of Cheluvaiah @ @ Keniyappa. The remaining extent of land is said | w have 'continued in the possession of Chandrachar and his : - legal beirs, 'Suresh @ Bhuvaneshwar and Purushotham, legal heirs of inte Chandrachar, had sold 1 acre, each, of the land Which had fallen to their share at a partition in favour of ". Muthuraju under sale deeds dated 23.9.1995 and 7.12.1908 BS respectively.
3. It is contended that the property in Survey No.7 26 wes entered as Phada in the revenue records and respondexit no.6 whe o had upon coming to know of this fact had made an application in. the - year 1991 for restoration of Phada and accordingly, it was. 3 reotored by respondent no.2 and khata was entered: in the. name of respondent -
no.6. It is therefore stated that several 'Uhird- -party 'purchasers, referred to herein above, of the various. parcels of lend sold from time to time have been in possession. and enjoyment of the same. The petitioners had, after, verifying that 'the 'above lands were unencumbered as ber the encumberance certificate for the period from 1.4.1950" 'to 71,2006 had purchased the lands under six different sale deeds ; as follows (i Sale Deed dated 10.05.2000 executed by
-. ~Narayanappa and his family members in
- .: favour of Sri.B.Jayarama, to an extent of
2. Acres, registered as Document a -Nc.430/ 2000-01 of Book I, Volume 3038 'at. Pages 196 ~ 199, in the office of the
-Sub-Registrar, Kanakapura.
(i}' Sale Deed dated 26.08.2000 executed by ~ Sri Cheluvaiah @ Kariyappa in favour of Sri. B.Jayaraman, to an extent of 3.00 Acres, registered as Document No. 1642/2000-01 of Book {, Volume 3054 at Pages 29-32, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kanakapuram.
(iii) Sale deed dated: 26.08.2000 executed by Sri Cheluvaiah @ Kariyappa in favour of % Sri.B,Jayaraman, to an extent of 2 Acres OS guntas, registered as Document.
NO.1648/2000-01 of Book I, Volume 3049 at Pages 150-154, in the office of mo the Sub-Registrar, Kanakepura.
(iv} Sale Deed dated: 02.11. 2000 executed by a legal heirs of Sri Chendrackar in favour of Sri B Venkatesh, to.an extent of 15 --
Acres 20 Guntas,- registered as .
Document No.2546/2000-01. of Bock I, -
Volume No.3666 at Pages. 90-96, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kenakapura.
{v) Sale Deed dated: 27. 09,2092 executed by Sn BD. _Jayaprakesh © and his family members' in favour of Sri 8B Venkatesh, to ar. exteni of 1-00 Acre, registered as Document N:. £2962, 2002-93 of Book L,
- Voehume 3209, at Pages 151-156, in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kanakapura.
(vi) 'Sale Deed daied:-28.09.2002 executed by Sri.Muthuraju in favour of Sri B Venkatesh, to an extent of 2-00 Acres, registered as Document No.3012/2002- : 03 of Book I, Volume 3209 at Pages 219- . . 224 tn the office of the Sub-Registran, _ Kanazapura', 4: kk is therefore contended that the first petitioner and his . brother. who is no more, and who is now represented by his legai representatives, have been in possession and enjoyment
-of the lands upon purchase of the same under the above sale deeds. The petitioners have further invested in the development of the lands over a period of time. It now transpées that the S fourth respondent had made an application for change 0 of katha 7 before the third respondent who in tum had» iseued an endorsement to the effect that the lands are alienated i in favour of third-parties viz., the petitioners 'herein and he farther opined that the fourth respondent ought to approach a Civil Court in respect of his claim over the land. However, on further representations by 'the fowth respondent to the third respondent, suo- "moti proceedings have been initiated by the said authority aud. the revere officials have been directed to conduct a spot inspection, and fernish a report as to the prevailing circumstances with "Tespect to the subject lands.
The petitioners, however, were not made parties to the said proceedings. -- Thereafter, the second respondent is found to "have directed the third respondent to effect khata in favour of the. fourth -yespondent by an order dated 23.2.2004 and | mutation has been effected by an order dated 7.7.2004. This is os "inspite of the report submitted by the jurisdictional Revenue "inspector to the effect that the fourth respondent was at no ; "point of time in possession of the land in question and that the 'petitioners and their predecessors-in-title have been in possession and enjoyment of the land. The petitioners upon learning of the revenue entries that were effected in favour of the fourth respondent, approached the first respondent cballengion the dated 14.11.2005 affirming the order passed hy 'third esponden The petitioner's thereafter had filed: a review petition before first. respondent which was also dismissed as on 14, i, 2005. It is this which is under challenge in the present» writ \ petition S. Senior Advocate Shri N Devdas appearing for the counsel for the petitioner contends as follows: 7
- The petitioners. and "their predecessors have been in possession and enjoyment of the lands for over fifty years as absolute owners, as borne out by the record. This aspect of the matter is completely 9 over- "tuled by the respondents. It is apparent that the impugned orders which are contrary to established principles of law ~ have beers paseed, on extraneous and irrelevant considerations. As con the date of ihe report dated 12.12.2003, said to have been
- generaicd in 'the RRT proceedings, the petitioners were in possession we and enjoyment of the land. The petitioners were not made parties to tie sat 'proceedings. This has resulted in violation of principles of
-- "natural justice. In that, the petitioners have been denied a right of ES hearing and this has resulted in the impugned orders which. directly.
affect the interest of the petitioners. The predecessors-in-title of the 7 ° petitioners being made parties, rendered the impugned orders one- sided, in the absence of the petitioners. | The significant ciroumsiance | that in the proceedings initiated in the year 1988 89, Phaila having :
been restored in favour of the sixth respondent, it was ; essential that the sixth respondent ought to have been provided : an opportunity in effecting the change in. mutation entries. it ia, evident that the fourth respondent has not placed eny materia! to evidence his possession over the land from the yeat 3949 which is 'sought to be claimed by the said respondent. Inspite, of tke same, the first and second respondents have proceeded to adjudicate as to the ownership of the lands assuming jurisdiction of a Civil Court. The Senior Advocate seeks to place reliance to to the following authorities:
a {1) SHRI ANNA RAO v8 GUNDA REDDY, ILR 1997 Karnataka, 1998 F or the proposition that, even, if it could be assumed that the authorities were conferred with the power to direct rectification of entries in the revenue records, the said power was required to be
- . exercised within a reasonable time from the date of the entry made in the revenue records and it is a well settled principle that when power is conferred on an authority to effectuate a purpose, it has to be 'S 10 exercised in a reasonable manner and the exercise of power in a reasonable manner imheres the concept of its exercise within "a reasonable time -- | | | 7 | (2) Reliance is also placed on the decision in S SHIVANNA vs 'THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR, 2006(1) KCCR, 652 for the same proposition > that even, if the statute does not prescribe a period of limitation, any power should be exercised within a reasonable time and exercise of power after lapse of a long time was: unreasonable. On the facts of that case, it was also held that to act in the year 2001 in respect of a cause of action that, had arisen in the 'year 1924, transcends all perceptions of vcting within reasonable time.
6. The reapondeats 1 'te > 9 aie represented by the Government Pleacier. It 4a, . contended that the Tahsildar of Kanakapura Taluk in his report dated 7, 12. 2003 has indicated that the land in Survey No. 726 measuring ¢ 28 acres 30 guntas though was shown in the tame of Sri Shankaracharappa and having been sold to one C Shankar 'wader registered sale deed, the khata of the land was not eausferred, However, it cannot be denied that Shankar had acquired ~ title in the year 1949. It is further clarified in the report that as per os endorsement dated 6.3.2003, the land was taken to Phada and it was restored in terms of the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 2 11 20.9.1988 and mutation was accepted in the name of Ramachar s/o Chandrachar. These entries are spurious and are apparentiy: :
concocted and he has opined that the. mutations "accepted in - M.R.No.23/1991 be cancelled and that the mutations be effected in the name of Shankar pursuant to the sale deed of the yeor 1949. It 2 is pursuant to this report that the Assistant Commissioner had issued notices to all persons who * were - duly served and the Assistant Commissioner has found that the alienation by the original khatedar Shankaracharappa 1 in favour of Chendrackar under the sale deeds of the year 1950 and 1952 were llega as 5 the entire extent of land was alienated in favour of Shankar iD 'the year 1949 itself. The absence of mutation entries: s being effected, 1a tavour of Shankar did not divest title to the land. Conversely, Shankaracharappa was not in a position to alienate any y portion of the land which was already sold by him in . favour of Chandrechay since it was alienated before hand to Shankar. Henoe, the subsequent sale deeds are invalid and void ab initio. It is also. ound en - verification that no order was passed in *."_No.RRTICR/29/88-89 dated 20/09/1988. Hence, the mutation ~~. entry in MR No.23/1991 in the name of H C Brahmachar while referring to RRT No.29/88-89 which was non-existent is illegal and was liable to be quashed. The mere delay or absence of secking E 12 mutation of the revenue entries by Shankar does not take way. 'the right and title acquired under the sale deed of the year 1949, Hence, . :
the impugned orders, whereby khata is suppcsed to be effected in int a the - : name of Shankar, cannot be faulted. Insofar ¢ as the contention that | there is a dispute as regards title and thar. the same ought not to be adjudicated by the revenue authorities i is, concerned, the Gove rhment Pleader would submit that there has been LO adjudication on the title to the property and that the parties are at "erty to 'agitate the same before a competent civil Court and therefore, would submit that the present writ petition ; is: s misconceived and the s same be dismissed.
7. Respondents ai 4(e) have filed statement of objections to contend as follows, 'that the property in Survey No.726 was owned by Shama Iver. to the extent of 24 acres and Nage Gowda was the owner ofs 3 ores, Sbama lyer died leaving behind Subrahmanya Iyer who sold 24 actes of the: land in favour of one Shankarachari under the sale deed dated 30. 5. 1948 and Nagegowda sold 3 acres of land in favour of Shavkarachari on 7.4.1947. Shankarachari inturn sold 27 oe acres 5 in favour of C Shankar under a registered sale deed dated oF 3. 1949 and after the death of Shankar, respondents 4(a) to 4{c) 'have t been in continuous possession of the land. It is contended that the claim of the petitioners as to Shankarachari having sold a portion 3 13 of the land in favour of Chandrachari under the sale deeds of 6.11.1950 and 15.10.1952 cannot be accepted as no right existed in .
Shankarachari having regard to the prior sale in favour of Shenker i in.
respect of the entire extent of land. Hence, tire elleged vale i ii. favour -
of Chandrachari and subsequent purchasers is 'therefore unicnable. It is urged that in the year 1959-60 the revenue records would indicate that the land is shown as Government Plada and for the period from 1974-95 ou 4979- Bo it is continued to be shown as Phada. From 1980- 81 to 1986 87. it continuous to be shown as Government Phada. As per the RTC extracts for the years 1988-89 onwards, upto 2901-02 there. are eniries in favour of various persons. These entries were > apparently made. On the strength of endorsements to state that the Assistant Commissioner had passed an order in RR/TC/ R/ 29/ 1988- 89. dated 20, 9.1988. However, the Assistant Commissioner has found that no such order was passed. It is thus plain that the RTC entries with effect from 1988-89 onwards were on ine. 'basis of fabricated documents. [It is upon the aforesaid C | » Shankar filing an application before the Tahsildar bringing to his . - attention the serious discrepancies, that the matter was referred to
--_ the Assistant Commissioner, who in turn, has cancelled the entries male earlier, in view of the sale deeds of the year 1948-49 and it is S 14 on his direction that the Tahsildar has passed an order effecting entries in favour of C Shankar in the revenue records. "Hence, the by the petitioners can only be the subject matter of a civil suit end ce cannot be adjudicated before the revenue authorities. The counsel oe would seek to place reliance ona decision n of this Court in GOLAPPA vs MALAKAPPA ILRF 1995 Karnataka, 1 . 18 wherein it was held that Sections 128 and 129 oit the Karnataka Land 'Revenue Act, 1964 do not prescribe any period for filing ¢ aL. appiication 'seeking mutation in case of acquisition. of a right. Reliance was. also placed on a decision in SRI HOLIYAPPA. va_ THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, ILR 1998 Karnataka, 1554 to the effect that a statutory duty is imposed on the revenue offier 'to effect 'change of mutation in respect of rights acquired ander registered sale deeds, even, if such acquisition is not reported te be, as a person acquiring right by virtue of a registered 'document 'is exempted, an obligation to the Court. The counsel "woud also rely on a Full Bench Judgment in C N NAGENDRA SINGH "Ve THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ILR 2002 Kamatake, "2756 for the proposition that revenue courts have no jurisdiction to os go into question of title.
B 1S
8. During the course of arguments in view of the reconts not being complete and in the wake of the serious dispute ¢ Bs regards ibe o very existence of an order RRT/CR/ 29/88- 8S, the "concerned | Assistant Commissioner who was called upon to clarity the position ; by way of an affidavit filed on 11.3.2099, has stated 'that under Chapter XIX of the Karnataka Land Revenue, Jands which are taken to Phada for arrears of land revere, would be restored in favour of the owner or the person 2 having an interest 'therein, if, he comes forward to pay the anvars. of iand revenue end secks restoration of Phada before the competent authority. The competent authority would then direct ihe Yahsitdar | to snake necessary entries in the revenue records. 'The orders passed i in this regard are recorded in the usual course of business. In the present case, the owner of the property had made s an application secking restoration of Phada. The
- conceniied 'Assistant: Commissioner had forwarded the same to the 'Taheikdar with a direction to verify the particulars and to submit a "report and on receiving such information, the Assistant _ Commissioner i is said to have passed an order in RRT/CR/29-88-89 Se - deted 20. 9.1988 while despatching the copy of the order, an entry would be made im the despatch register. However, it has been verified that there is no such entry in the despatch register 16 maintained in the office of the Assistant Commissioner for the years 1988-89. It is also clarified in the very affidavit sworn: to jointly by _ the Tahsildar concerned, that any order or iettsr from the Assistant :
Commissioner despatched to his office, would find Place, in nthe General Register, but on verification | in 'the Geiieral Register for the relevant period there is no order bearing RRT/CR/ 29/88-89 dated 20/9/1988 noted, but an entry bearing No-RiT CR 28/88-89 in respect of the very same survey number i in. found in this register.
9. A further affidavit of cur » Ramesh who is said to be the power of attorney uckéer for respondents 4{a) to 4(c) was filed on 9.3.2009 pursuant to the aftidavit Bled! on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 to highlight the discrepancies of the stand taken by respondents 1 to 3.. It is denied tisat the second respondent had passed the order in RRT/ cRy 294 1988-89 and in this regard, an endorsement has been issued as per Annexure R13. It is in this nebulous circumstance that the reapondents were called upon to clarify the position by way of an affidavit. : The statement that the order is no longer traccable would oe - - okay demonstrate that no such order was passed. It is stated that " . the Assistant Commissioner's office maintains a register called Case ~ Register j in which all cases of a particular area will be noted. Apart from this there is a register called Tappal Register wherein every 17 order passed by the Assistant Commissioner's office, and which is despatched to the Tahsildar, is made note of. The Tasik" 3 office .
in turn maintains a Tappal Register. There i is u0 effort made to . ascertain, if} there was a Tappal Register in the 'Tohsilder's: otfice which records the receipt of the order i in RRT/CR/26/ 88-39. In aity event, the Tahsildar cannot make any corrections in the revenue entries in the absence of an onder Y the Assistant Commissioner and he could not have Broceeded, on the basis. of #2 copy of the file furnished by a party. wt is in this backgrvand that the earliest holders of the sale deel viz., , the father of respondents 4(b) to 4(c) and husband of respondent no: or) was rightly held as the person whose name ought to 'be found in » the revenue records. The petitioners, who seek to claim B. better title | are to work out their remedies by recourse to a civil suit and therefore he submits that the petition be dismissed.
. 10. In the light of the above rival contentions, it is secn that on 'the basis of the report of the Tahsildar, Kanakapura Taluk dated _ 12.12.2003 to the effect that land in Survey No.726 measuring 28 we acres 20 guntas stood in the name of Shankaracharappa and was oki in favour of C Shankar under a registered sale deed dated 26.2. 1949/7.3.1949, however, khata was not transferred in favour of é 18 C Shankar. Further, the land was taken to Phada for arrears of 'land revenue. It was restored pursuant to the order of the Assistant.
Commissioner in RRT/CR/28/88-89, consequent upon. | which ~ ;
mutation was effected in MR No.23/ 1991 in. the: name 'of. iH C Brahbmachar which in the opinion of tne. Tahsitdar was not + tenable wn .
those orders are bogus orders as the subsequent alienation of land by Shankaracharappa in favour of Chandracher ander sale deeds of the year 1950 and 1952 were not legal and it i is the original purchaser C Shankar who alone wouid be entitled to bave the mutation effected in his favour. This. opinion "has. been accepted by the Assistant Commissioner who naa preceeded to pass an order in this regard by holding that the mutation entry. i in 'favour of H C Brahmachar was illegal as the record did not" indicate that any order bearing No. RRT/CR/ 2088-89 was cver passed by his office and therefore, it was 'concluded that any subsequent purchasers claiming titk were . deing so yon n the besis of bogus entries made pursuant to the illegal | 'sale transactions by Shankaracharappa in favour of Chandrachar. % The onder of the Assistant Commissioner having been affirmed by the * Deputy Commissioner, it is now for this Court to consider the legality . : and tenability of the said impugned orders.
S 19
11. The petitioners have traced their title to the sale deeds of the year 1950 and 1952, the revenue entries made from time to time is in the manner known to law. The respondents 1 to 3. having found ; - at the instance of respondent no.4, now represenied by respondeats 4(a) to (c} that the record did not reflect | or contain the onder said to have been passed by the office of the: Assistant Commissioner in RRT/CR/ 29/88-89 dated 20.9. 3988 pr ceding , mutation - entry MR No. 23/ 1990-91 and therefore, the same was fraudulent and a got up entry, have proceeded to roongniss respondent n no.4 as the khatedar on the basis of the sale. deed of the year 1949 and in effect, have declared the several parties who were claiming title under subsequent registered sale deeds, as being purchasers under illegal transactions.
- 12. tis to be noted that the affidavits filed by the concerned Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar dated 11.3.2009 was the . third attemapt on 'the part of the said authorities to clarify the position | ss regards the said order no.RRT/CR/29/1988-89. In the affidavit i dated 26. 2. 2009, it is stated that what is produced in the writ > petition at Annexure R13 viz., the disputed RRT/CR/28/ 1968-89, | "has-been passed by the Office of the Assistant Commissioners,
- -Kenakapura Taluk and that the original order is yet to be traced.
S Since, this was contrary to the categorical findings in the 'impugned orders as to the orders being fraudulent and got up, 'the | authoriy was called upon to file a better affidavit. By an affitovii dated 3.3.2009, it was repeated that the disputed order was passed by 'the office of the Assistant Commissioner and the mutation entrics and | . the original mutation register was made « on- the basis of that order but, while shifting the office from the od. 'building to the Mini Vidhana Soudha Ramanageran, the + original records were misplaced and inspite of search, the same \ was, not traced. 'In the third affidavit, it is repeated that tise Avsistant Commissioner passed the order but, while sending a copy of the order, no entry was made in the Despatch Register. Hence, there is: a vague and inconsistent stand on the part of the authorities as" 'to the disputed order restoring Phada on the basis. of tie 'application 'of H C Brehmachar. The effect and = consequence of: the 'imspugned orders are far reaching and affect | : several third-parties, who have proceeded in the manner known to
- law i in transactiag in respect of the said land, their right and title are . 'seriously jeopardised by the impugned orders. The contention on | behalf of respondents 4(a) to (c) that in view of the sale deed in favour : "of Shankar i in the year 1949, all other sale transactions are null and void as the vendor did not possess the land in question in making S 2t such alienations, subsequent to the same in favour of Shenkar and since, no period is fixed under Section 128 of the Karnataks. Land Revenue Act for seeking mutation and on application i by the deceased ; - respondent no.4, the authorities having found that mutation entiies made in favour of various parties were egal on account of the order :
directing restoration of Phada having been found to be ¢ fraudulent, being legal and valid, cannot be accepted.
13. The decisicns i ca) 'the case e of Gollappa » vs Malakappa supra and Holiyappa vs The Deputy Tehsildar supra, are sought to be drawn out of context. An 'applicant seeking mutation, when there is no dispute as to the title ander which such an applicant claims, or the proviso to Secticn (128° imposiag a statutory duty on the revenue officer to offect change | of mutation, could be pressed into service when. there is 20 dispute or claim by a third party notwithstanding
- the time lag. But however, when the interest of third-parties has intervened 4 and mutation entries have been effected from time to time on the hasis of registered documents of title, to act at the instance of
- oe a pasty who } has remained dormant over several decades and to divest : - entries made in favour of several parties pursuant to innumerable * sale transactions, would render the action of the respondents 1 to 3 S herein as being without jurisdiction and unjust. In this regard, the decision of this Court in the case of S SHIVANNA vs THE SPECIAL 7 TAHSILDAR supra, would cover the case on all fours, in that, it is :
not the function of the Tahsildar to determine the rights of pertics, like a Civil Court, in holding that the deceased respondent no.4 could . . still claim under a sale deed of the year 1949, This: 'was essentially a matter for the Civil Court and. not for the absildar to decide. The allegation as regards fraudulent. omer or * got-up documents are again questions which ought + to: 'have 'bres agitated before a Civil Court and not before ther revenue authorities The authorities by the impugned orders have proceeited to declare the rights of the parties under registered documents of. tide, As held by this Court, the revenue authorities act for - change of entries etc., only based on the earlier acquisition of title which has taken place already and the revenue 'entries are: only a reflection of such change of entry.
- Revenue entries would not create or extinguish rights but only reflect _the rights already possessed.
- 14, 'ia this light of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding me th that the impugned orders are bad in law and cannot be sustained.
The respondents 4 (a) to 4(c), now representing respondent no.4, seeking to claim title, would have to work out any remedy available before a competent civil Court, if the law so permits. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The orders at Annexurés A to c are hereby quashed. _ brn