Karnataka High Court
Smt Puttathayamma vs Smt Shivarudramma on 7 September, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 11066 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 11066 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT PUTTATHAYAMMA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
W/O LATE THIMME GOWDA
R/O BAANASAMUDRA VILLAGE
AND KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
Digitally signed by
MANDYA DISTRICT 571421
JUANITA
THEJESWINI
Location: HIGH
2. SMT. BHAGYAMMA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
KARNATAKA
W/O LATE MAYI GOWDA
@ THIMME GOWDA
R/O BESAGARAHALLI VILLAGE
KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT 571419
3. KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE MAYI GOWDA
R/O BAANASAMUDRA VILLAGE
AND KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571421
-2-
WP No. 11066 of 2022
4. SMT. SHANTHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
D/O LATE LMAYI GOWDA
W/O SESHAPPA
R/O DODDEGOWDANA KOPPALU
KIRUGAVALUR HOBLI,
MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA 571422
5. SMT. RADHA
(DAUGHTER IN LAW)
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
W/O LATE RAJENDRA
S/O LATE MAYI GOWDA
R/O BAANASAMUDRA VILLAGE
AND KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571421
6. SRINIVASU
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
S/O LATE MAYI GOWDA
R/O BAANASAMUDRA VILLAGE
AND KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571421
7. LAXMANA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
S/O LATE MAYI GOWDA
R/O BAANASAMUDRA VILLAGE
AND KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571421
8. SMT. LAXMAMMA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
D/O LATE MAYI GOWDA
W/O LINGARAJU
-3-
WP No. 11066 of 2022
R/O ATHAGOOR VILLAGE
AND KASABA HOBLI
MADDUR TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SHIVARAMU.H.C, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT SHIVARUDRAMMA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
W/O LATE RAMAKRISHNE GOWDA
@ RAJANNA
R/O BAANASAMUDRA VILLAGE
AND KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571421
2. SMT. SHOBHA
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNE GOWDA
@ RAJANNA
W/O RAMESH
R/O PANDITHAHALLI VILLAGE
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571430
3. SMT. SAVITHA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNE GOWDA
@ RAJANNA
W/O PRAKASH
R/O BASAVANAPURA VILLAGE
AND KASABA HOBLI
-4-
WP No. 11066 of 2022
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571421
4. SMT. SUGUNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNE GOWDA
@ RAJANNA
W/O KRISHNA
R/O VODDARAHALLI VILLAGE
AND KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT 571430
5. THE THASILDAR
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
6. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
OFFICE OF THE THASILDAR
MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT
7. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT
BANNASANDRA VILLAGE
AND KASABA HOBLI
MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA DISTRICT
8. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANDYA SUB DIVISION
MANDYA
9. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.L. SREENIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4
BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR.A.PATIL, AGA FOR R5 TO R9)
-5-
WP No. 11066 of 2022
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.04.2022 PASSED BY THE R9 IN
RP NO.41/2021 AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondents No.5 to 9. Learned counsel Sri K.L.Sreenivas has entered appearance for respondents No.1 to 4 by filing a caveat petition.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District in No.RP 41/2021 at Annexure-F.
3. The petitioners herein earlier approached the Assistant Commissioner, Mandya Sub-division, by filing an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land -6- WP No. 11066 of 2022 Revenue Act, 1964 in RS No.275/2019, questioning the mutation entry made in MR No.152/1998-99. It was contended by the petitioners that 1 acre of land in Sy.No.75/2C situated at Banasamudra Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District was purchased by Sri Thimme Gowda under a registered sale deed dated 15.04.1982. After the demise of Sri Thimme Gowda, the name of Sri Mayi Gowda S/o Thimme Gowda was entered in the land records and continued to stand in the land records till 1998-99 i.e., when the mutation entry in MR No.152/98-99 was passed by the Tahsildar. Petitioner No.1 is the widow of Sri Mayi Gowda and other petitioners are children of Sri Mayi Gowda.
4. Learned counsel Sri H.C.Shivaramu appearing for the petitioners would submit that Sri Ramakrishne Gowda, brother of Sri Mayi Gowda got his name entered in the land records in terms of the impugned MR No.152/98- 99, on the strength of a so called panchayat parikath, -7- WP No. 11066 of 2022 which was an unregistered document. This was sought to be questioned before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and directed the restoration of the katha as it stood earlier to the mutation entry made in MR No.158/98-99. Being aggrieved, the contesting respondents herein who claimed under Sri Ramakrishne Gowda approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing a revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Act.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Deputy Commissioner erred in holding that the mutation entry in terms of MR No.152/98-99 was based on a panchayat parikath along with the consent of the parties. It is contended that the petitioners had not given their consent and therefore, it was wrong on the part of the Deputy Commissioner to have held the mutation entry though based on an unregistered instrument, was made in terms of the consent given by the other parties including -8- WP No. 11066 of 2022 the petitioners herein. Learned counsel submits that when admittedly the panchayat parikath is an unregistered document and could not have been acted upon, the original order passed by the Tahsildar based an unregistered document is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents would submit that the Deputy Commissioner has rightly noticed the fact that while making the mutation entry in terms of MR No.152/98-99, care was taken by the revenue authorities to enter the name of the respective share holders in terms of the partition and the names of each of the share holders were mutated in respect of the respective shares allotted to them. Therefore, it is contended that the Deputy Commissioner rightly held that the mutation entry made way back in the year 1998-99 could not have been questioned by the petitioners herein after long lapse of more than 21 years. The Deputy -9- WP No. 11066 of 2022 Commissioner has therefore rightly allowed the revision petition while setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
7. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, contesting respondents, the learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the respondent- revenue authorities and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that although in normal circumstances it would be impermissible for the revenue authorities to act upon an unregistered partition deed, nevertheless it is also permissible in law when consent is given by the other interested persons admitting the partition amongst the family members, to take note of such partition or a oral partition which was later on reduced in writing as palupatti and to direct mutation entry accordingly. The reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner that if the petitioners had not given their consent, it was always open for them to question the mutation entry no sooner it was made in the
- 10 -
WP No. 11066 of 2022land records, cannot be faulted. The enormous delay of 21 years on the part of the petitioners in filing an appeal and questioning the mutation entry entered in MR No.152/98-99 also goes against the petitioners. It is also well settled by now that the revenue authorities cannot decide the question of title of the parties. Even if there is a dispute that the entry in the revenue records has not made in terms of the so called panchayat parikath, nevertheless, such an issue cannot be gone into by the revenue authorities. The petitioners are required to approach a competent civil court and secure a declaration at the hands of the civil court regarding their rights in respect of the land in question. It follows that as and when the petitioners succeed in getting a declaration, they are entitled to enter their names in the land revenue records.
8. For the foregoing reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Deputy
- 11 -
WP No. 11066 of 2022Commissioner and proceeds to dismiss the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE KLY