Karnataka High Court
Smt.Ayyamma W/O Basanagouda vs Ningamma D/O Hanumantappap Society on 21 July, 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 21 S T DAY OF J ULY, 2020
B EFORE
THE HON'B LE MR. JU ST ICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
W.P.NO.105353/2019 (KLR/RR/SUR)
AN D
W.P.NOS.105754-105755/2019
BETWEEN :
SMT.AY YAMMA W/O BASANAGOU DA
SINCE DECEASED B Y HER LRS,
1. SHRI JAY PRAKASH NARAYANGOU DA
S/O B ASANAGOUDA,
AGE: 38 YEARS, O CC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O: MALLAPU R-583 227,
TQ: GANGAVATH I,
DIST: KOPPAL.
2. SMT.VIJJAMMA @ VIJAYALAX MI
W/O NAGARAJ B ANDLI,
AGE: 45 YEARS, O CC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: NANDI NAGA R,
KOP PAL- 583 2 31.
3. SMT.HANUMAMMA W/O AYYANAGOU DA
AGE: 47 YEARS, O CC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MALLAPU R-583 227,
TQ: GANGAVATH I,
DIST: KOPPAL.
4. SMT.ANJALI W/O MUT TANNA
AGE: 27 YEARS, O CC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: B ANNIGOL- 5 83 2 36,
TQ: YELAB U RGA, DIST : KOPPAL.
5. SHRI ANJANIGOU DA S/O AYY ANAGOUDA
AGE: 27 YEARS, O CC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O: MALLAPU R-583 227,
TQ: GANGAVATH I, DIST: KOPPAL.
2
6. G.SU RY ANARAYANREDDY
S/O NAGIR EDDY,
AGE: 27 YEARS, O CC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O: MALLAPU R-583 227,
TQ: GANGAVATH I, DIST: KOPPAL.
7. SMT.KARILAKSHMI W/O KRISHNAREDDY
AGE: 64 YEARS, O CC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: RAMPU R-583 227,
TQ: GANGAVATH I,
DIST: KOPPAL.
8. G.ACCHIREDDY S/O NAGIR EDDY
AGE: 61 YEARS, O CC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O: RAMPU R-583 227,
TQ: GANGAVATH I,
DIST: KOPPAL.
... PETIT IONERS
(B Y SRI F.V.PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AN D :
1. NINGAMMA
D/O HANUMANTAPPAP SOC IET Y
CALLING HERS ELF AS
SMT.NINGAMMA W/O B ASANAGOUDA,
AGE: 66 YEARS, O CC: HOUSEHOLD,
R/O: MALLAPU R-583227,
TQ: GANGAVATH I,
DIST: KOPPAL.
2. ANJANIG OU DA S/O NINGAMMA
CALLING HIMSELF AS
ANJANIG OU DA S/O B ASANAGOUDA
AGE: 46 YEARS, O CC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O: MALLAPU R-583 227,
TQ: GANGAVATH I,
DIST: KOPPAL.
3. SHRI KR ISHNA S/ O NINGAMMA
CALLING HIMSELF AS
KRISHNA S/O B ASANAGOUDA
AGE: 38 YEARS, O CC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O: MALLAPU R-583 227,
TQ: GANGAVATH I,
DIST: KOPPAL.
3
4. SHRI ANAND S/O NINGAMMA
CALLING HIMSELF AS
ANAND S/O B ASANAGOU DA
AGE: 35 YEARS, O CC: AGRICULTU RE,
R/O: MALLAPU R-583227,
TQ: GANGAVATH I,
DIST: KOPPAL.
5. THE TAHASILDAR
GANGAVATH I-583 227,
DIST: KOPPAL.
6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISS IONER
KOP PAL- 583 2 21.
7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KOP PAL- 583 2 21.
8. REVENUE INSPECTOR,
GANGAVATH I,
GANGAVATH I-583227,
DIST: KOPPAL.
9. VIL LAGE ACCOU NTANT,
RAMPU R, RAMPUR-583 227,
TQ: GANGAVATH I, DIST: KOPPAL.
... RESPONDENTS
(B Y SRI JAY AKU MAR S.PATIL, SENIOR COU NSEL FOR
SRI SADIQ N.GOODWALA & SRI A.B.PAT IL, ADVOCATES
FOR R.2 T O R4: R.2 TO R4 ARE T REAT ED AS L.RS., OF
DECEASED R.1)
THESE WR IT PET ITIONS ARE FILED U NDER
ARTICLES 226 & 2 27 OF THE CONST ITU TION OF INDIA ,
PRAYING THIS HON'B LE COURT T O ISSU E A WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORAR I OR ANY OT HER WRIT ,
ORDER OR DIREC TION QU ASHIN G THE ORDER DATED
03. 01.2019 PASS ED B Y T HE DEPU TY COMMISSIONER,
KOPPAL IN A PPEAL B EARING NO.KAM/APEELU /33/2016-
17 KA.NO.22940 PRODU CED AS PER ANNEX U RE-M IN
THE INT EREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THESE WR IT PET IT IONS HAVING B EEN HERARD
AND RESEVED F OR ORDERS ON 23.06.2020 COMIN G ON
FOR PR ONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER S, THIS DAY, THE
COU RT MADE T HE FOLL OWING:
4
: ORD ER :
The captioned writ petitions are filed by the
petitioners seeking writ in the nature of certiorari
and quash the order bearing No.Kam/Apeelu/33/
2016-17, K.No.22940, dated 03.01.2019 passed
by the 7 t h respondent/Deputy Commissioner as
per Annexure-M.
2. The facts leading to the top noted writ
petitions are as under:
The subject matter of the writ petitions are
agricultures lands bearing Sy.No.12/A (12/A2)
measuring 1 acre 20 guntas, Sy.No.12/C (12/C)
measuring 4 acres 34 guntas and Sy.No.14
measuring 6 acres 34 guntas sitated at Ramapur
village, Gangavathi Taluka, Koppal District. The
said lands are renumbered as R.S.No.12/1C,
R.S.No.12/2B, R.S.No.12/C and R.S.No.14.
3. It is not in dispute that all these
petition lands were originally owned by one
5
Basanagouda son of Ayyanagouda. The
petitioners have averred in paragraph No.2 of the
writ petitions that the said Basanagouda died in
the year 1983 leaving behind him his wife
Ayyamma, two sons namely Narayangouda and
Ayyanagouda and two daughters namely
Vijjamma @ Vijayalaxmi and Hanamavva. The
petitioners have contended that the original
propositus Basanagouda sold an area measuring
2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.12/3 (12C) and 1 acre
20 guntas in Sy.No.12/A2 to petitioner No.7
namely Karilaxmi W/o Krishnareddi for sale
consideration of Rs.36,000/- under registered
sale deed dated 31.05.1978 and accordingly she
was put in possession. Petitioner No.7 name was
duly mutated to the revenue records pursuant to
the sale deed executed by the Basanagouda.
4. At paragraph Nos.3 of the writ
petitions, the petitioners have contended that,
Basanagouda during his lifetime gave up his
6
rights over an area measuring 2 acres 14 guntas
out of Sy.No.12/3 in favour of his wife Ayyamma
and accordingly her name was mutated to the
revenue records. The wife of Basanagouda
namely Ayyamma sold 2 acres 14 guntas of land
in Sy.No.12/3 (12C) to petitioner No.8 through
registered sale deed dated 11.05.1983 for sale
consideration of Rs.25,000/-. Pursuant to sale
deed, petitioner No.8's name was duly mutated to
the revenue records under ME.No.31 dated
25.06.1983. Further Ayyamma sold an area
measuring 1 acre 26 guntas in Sy.No.14 in favour
of petitioner No.6 for sale consideration of
Rs.19,000/- through registered sale deed dated
11.05.1983 and petitioner No.6 name was duly
mutated to the revenue records of Sy.No.14
under M.E.No.30 dated 25.06.1983. The
petitioners to substantiate their alienations have
placed on record, the true copies of sale deeds
and consequent mutations before this Court as
per Annexures-B, C, D, E and F.
7
5. The case of the petitioners before this
Court is, these mutations were effected way back
in 1983, wherein the purchasers' names
(petitioner Nos.6 to 8) came to be mutated and
the same are not at all challenged till this date.
The grievance of the petitioners is that it is only
in 2012, respondent No.1 who has no semblance
of right and title and who is no way related to
deceased Basanagouda submitted an application
to respondent Nos.5/Tahasildar seeking for entry
of her name to the revenue record. The 5th
respondent issued an endorsement on 06.12.2012
in RRT/8/2012-13, thereby declining to enter the
name of respondent No.1. It appears, respondent
No.1 preferred an appeal before the 6th
respondent/Assistant Commissioner in Koppal/
RRT/Appeal 164/ 2012-13. The 6 t h respondent/
Assistant Commissioner by order dated
28.12.2012 allowed the appeal and remanded the
matter to the 5 t h respondent/ Tahasildar.
8
6. Petitioner Nos.1 and 6 to 8 being
aggrieved by the order passed by the 6th
respondent/Assistant Commissioner approached
this Court questioning the remand order passed
by the 6 t h respondent/Assistant Commissioner in
W.P.Nos.76208-211/2013. This Court by order
dated 26.03.2013 set aside the order dated
28.12.2012 passed by the 6t h respondent/
Assistant Commissioner and directed the 1st
respondent to implead all necessary parties in the
appeal. In compliance of the order passed by this
Court, the 1st respondent impleaded the
predecessors of petitioner Nos.1 to 5 namely
Ayyamma and also, the purchasers i.e., petitioner
Nos.6 to 8 as parties in RRT Appeal No.164/2012-
13. The 6 t h respondent/Assistant Commissioner
allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to
the 5 t h respondent/Tahasildar.
7. After remand, the 5t h respondent/
Tahasildar registered the case in Kandaya.
9
RRT.Takaraju/25/2015-16 and by order dated
18.05.2015 directed to enter name of respondent
Nos.1 to 4 in the revenue records of petition
lands.
8. The vendor Ayyamma who is the
ancestor of petitioner Nos.1 to 5 and present
petitioner Nos.6 to 8, being aggrieved by the
order passed by the 5 t h respondent/Tahasildar
preferred an appeal before the 6 t h respondent/
Assistant Commissioner in RRT Appeal No.105/
2015-16. The 6th respondent/Assistant
Commissioner allowed the appeal and set aside
the order passed by 5 t h respondent/Tahasildar,
Gangavati and directed him to enter the names
as per the registered sale deeds.
9. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and two others
preferred revision before the 7t h respondent/
Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No.33/2016-17.
The 7th respondent/Deputy Commissioner has
allowed the revision and has set aside the order
10
passed by the 6th respondent/Assistant
commissioner and has relegated the parties to
await the decision of the suit pending in
O.S.No.207/2011 which was renumbered as
O.S.No.115/2016.
10. The petitioners at paragraph No.12 of
the writ petitions have specifically averred that
respondent Nos.1 to 4 have filed suit for partition
and separate possession in O.S.No.207/2011. The
petitioners also specifically averred that
respondent Nos.1 to 4 in the said suit have also
sought relief of declaration to declare the sale
deeds executed by the deceased Ayyamma in
favour of defendant Nos.14 to 16 i.e., the present
petitioner Nos.6 to 8 as not binding on
respondent Nos.1 to 4.
11. Learned counsel Sri F.V.Patil assailing
the correctness of impugned order passed by the
7th respondent/Deputy Commissioner as per
Annexure-M would vehemently contend before
11
this Court that the impugned order passed by the
7 t h respondent/Deputy Commissioner suffers from
serious infirmities and material irregularities. He
would contend before this Court that petitioner
Nos.6 to 8 have purchased the petition lands
under registered sale deeds for valuable sale
consideration and accordingly mutations are
effected way back in 1983 and petitioner Nos.6 to
8 names are duly mutated to the revenue records
on the basis of acquisition of valid right and title
of the petition lands. He would further submit to
this Court that, the 1st respondent has no
semblance of right and she has already
approached Civil Court by filing a suit for
partition and separate possession and relief of
declaration is also sought by the respondent
Nos.1 to 4 to the effect that the sale deeds
executed by Ayyamma is not binding on them.
12. He would submit to this Court that the
7th respondent/Deputy Commissioner was not
12
justified in relegating the petitioner Nos.6 to 8 to
work out their rights in suit pending in
O.S.No.207/2011 and this finding is perverse and
contrary to mandatory provisions of Section 128
of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
13. Countering said submissions, learned
Senior Counsel Sri Jayakumar S.Patil appearing
for Sri Sadiq N.Goodwala & Sri A.B.Patil, learned
counsels for contesting respondents would
vehemently argue and support the reasons
assigned by the 5 t h respondent/Tahasildar. He
would submit to this Court after the death of
Basanagouda, the 1 s t respondent Ningamma being
Class-1 heir, is entitle to get her name mutated
to the revenue records pertaining to petition
lands. He would vehemently argue and submit to
this Court that on death of Basanagouda,
someone's name has to be mutated and the
mutation as directed by 5 t h respondent/Tahasildar
13
vide Annexure-H would be subject to result of
suit pending in O.S.No.207/2011.
14. To buttress his arguments, he would
take this Court to statement of objections and by
relying on Annexures-R2 and R.3, he would
submit to this Court that, Ayyamma was
exclusively allotted ancestral lands bearing
Sy.Nos.69 and 28 and the same is forthcoming
from the proceedings as per Annexure-R2 before
the Land Tribunal, Gangavathi.
15. Learned Senior Counsel would rely on
order passed by Land Tribunal under Section 66
of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and would
contend before this Court that Ayyamma was
allotted Sy.Nos.69 and 28 and hence, she had no
right over the petition lands and as such the sale
deeds executed by Ayyamma in favour of
petitioner Nos.6 to 8 would not create any right
and title over the petition lands. He would also
rely on Annexure-R.3 to the statement of
14
objections, which is declaration submitted by the
Basanagouda in Form No.11 and by relying on
this document he would submit to this Court that
Basanagouda was living separately by making an
arrangement in favour of his wife Ayyamma and
as such she could not lay claim over other
properties .
16. On these set of facts, learned Senior
Counsel would submit to this Court that the order
passed by the 5 t h respondent/Tahasildar and the
impugned order passed by the 7 t h respondent/
Deputy Commissioner relegating the parties to
seek redressal of their rights in O.S.No.207/2011
is in accordance with law and would not warrant
any interference by this Court.
17. Per contra, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners by way of reply would submit
to this Court that, the lands bearing Sy.No.12/A2
and Sy.No.12C have been sold by Basanagouda in
favour of petitioner No.7 and insofar as petitioner
15
Nos.6 to 8 are concerned they have acquired
valid right and title pursuant to registered sale
deed executed by the wife of Basanagouda
namely Ayyamma. He would contend before this
court that petitioner Nos.6 to 8 are in exclusive
possession since 1983 and respondent Nos.1 to 4
on the strength of the order passed by the 5 t h
respondent/Tahasildar are trying to dispossess.
18. By way of reply he would also rely and
take this Court to paragraph No.6 of the Plaint
and would vehemently argue and contend that,
respondent No.1 Ningamma was quite aware of
all these transactions and she has never
challenged the sale deeds till filing of the suit
and hence he would submit to this Court that the
mutations effected in favour of petitioner Nos.6
to 8 cannot be disturbed pending disposal of the
suit. It is respondent Nos.1 to 4 who have
approached the Court and have sought
declaration and hence, the mutation effected in
16
favour of petitioner Nos.6 to 8 way back in 1983
would be subject to result of suit and in this
context he would submit to this Court that the
order passed by the 7th respondent/Deputy
Commissioner in confirming the order of the 5 t h
respondent/Tahasildar and thereby directing to
enter the names of respondent Nos.1 to 4 suffers
from serious material irregularities and as such
would request this Court to quash the order of 7 t h
respondent/Deputy Commissioner.
19. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and examined the material on record.
20. The relevant points that would arise for
consideration before this Court are as under:
a) Whether the 7 t h respondent / Deputy
Commissioner and the 5 t h respondent/
Tahasildar have erred in directing the
Revenue Authorities to mutate the
name of respondent Nos.1 to 4 by
deleting the names of petitioner Nos.6
to 8?
17
b) Whether the orders of the 7th
respondent/Deputy Commissioner as
per Annexure-M and the order of 5 t h
respondent/Tahasildar as per
Annexure-H are in violation of the
mandatory provisions of Section 128 of
Karnataka Land Revenue Act?
21. The admitted facts are that
Basanagouda sold an area measuring 2 acres 20
gutnas in Sy.No.12/3 and 1 acre 20 guntas in
Sy.No.12/A2 in favour of petitioner No.7 under
the registered sale deed dated 31.05.1978 for
valuable sale consideration of Rs.36,000/-.
Smt.Ayyamma wife of Basanagouda has sold 2
acres 14 gutnas in Sy.No.12/3 (12C) in favour of
petitioner No.8 under registered sale deed dated
11.05.1983 for valuable sale consideration of
Rs.25,000/-. Petitioner No.8's name is mutated to
the revenue records under M.E No.31 dated
25.06.1983 as per Annexure-D. Petitioner No.6
has purchased Sy.No.14 measuring 1 acres 26
guntas by Ayyamma dated 11.05.1983 for
18
valuable sale consideration of Rs.19,000/-.
Mutation is effected in favour of petitioner No.6
as per M.E.No.30 dated 25.06.1983 as per
Annexure-F. The material on record clearly
indicates that the mutation effected under
M.E.No.30 dated 25.06.1983 as per Annexure-F
and mutation effected under M.E.No.31 as per
Annexure-D are not at all challenged and set
aside by the competent authority. These
mutations under M.E.Nos.30 and 31 have attained
finality.
22. The question that would arise before
this Court is, as to whether respondent Nos.1 to
4 without challenging these mutations can assert
rights over the petition lands and seek for
mutation on the ground that they are the class-1
heirs of Basanagouda? The order under challenge
needs to be examined by this Court, by taking
note of filing of the suit by respondents in
O.S.No.207/2011. For better understanding the
19
controversy, the prayer sought in the Plaint by
respondent Nos.1 to 4 is culled out as under:
"i) Hence it is prayed that, the Hon'ble
Court would be pass the judgment
and decree against the defendants in
the "B" suit schedule properties by
separate possession by metes and
bonds referring to the Tahasildar
Gangavathi U/Sec.54 of C.P.C who is
survey authority by demarking by
fixing the boundaries of the plaintiff
and the defendant Nos.1 to 5 over the
"B" schedule property.
i(a) To declare the sale deeds executed
by the defendant No.1 in favour of
defendant No.14 to 16 is not binding
upon the plaintiff.
ii) Be pleased to direct the revenue
authorities i.e., Tahasildar
Gangavathi to make an entry in
respect of "B" schedule property of ½
share and further the revenue entry
may be cancelled in the revenue
records by deleting the name of the
defendants No.1 to 9 in ROR by
20
substituting the name of plaintiff No.1
to 5 in the "B" schedule properties.
iii) Cost of the suit may be awarded any
other relief as deemed also be
granted in the circumstances of the
suit."
23. The 5th respondent/Tahasidlar taking
note of pendency of a suit directs to enter the
names of respondents and this order is confirmed
by the 7 t h respondent/Deputy Commissioner. The
7th Respondent/Deputy Commissioner also
relegates the present petitioners to the lis
pending in O.S.No.207/2011. The 7 t h respondent/
Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order
passed by the 6th respondent/Assistant
Commissioner. The 7th respondent/Deputy
Commissioner has not at all examined the
reasons assigned by the 6 t h respondent/Assistant
Commissioner. The 6th respondent/Assistant
Commissioner has rightly recorded a finding that
the petitioner Nos.6 to 8 names are mutated to
21
the revenue records pursuant to acquisition of
right and title under registered sale deeds and
hence, the revenue authority have no jurisdiction
to set aside those entries by exercising
jurisdiction under Section 136 of Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964.
24. The 7th Respondent/Deputy
Commissioner by directing the authorities to
enter the names of respondents has virtually
usurped the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. The 7 t h
respondent/Deputy Commissioner failed to note
that the petitioners' names are duly mutated
strictly in terms of proviso to Section 128 of
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Whenever
there is an acquisition of right and title under
registered document, a duty is cast upon
registered authority under Section 128 of
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 to make a
report of such acquisition of right to the
prescribed authority. Since execution of sale deed
22
in favour of petitioner Nos.6 to 8 are not set
aside by any competent court of law, ex-facie for
the purpose of Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964, it has to be taken that document confers
good title on the petitioner Nos.6 to 8. The
jurisdiction as to whether these sale deeds are
valid and binding on respondent Nos.1 to 4
clearly rest exclusively with Civil Court and not
with revenue authority. The 7th respondent/
Deputy Commissioner by ordering to enter the
names of respondent Nos.1 to 4 pending decision
of a Competent Civil Court in O.S.No.207/2011
has virtually exceeded his power and this is
impermissible under Section 128 of Karnataka
Land Revenue Act. The mutation entries effected
by the revenue authorities way back in 1983 are
in conformity with the provisions of Section 128
of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. If the
registered sale deeds which are questioned in
O.S.No.2007/2011 are found to be invalid or not
binding on contesting respondents, the same has
23
to be declared by the Competent Civil Court
under a judicial order of civil Court and not by an
executive order of the revenue authority.
25. The question that would arise before
this Court is as to whether the 7 t h respondent/
Deputy Commissioner can direct his subordinates
to enter the names of respondents as legal heirs
when lis between the parties is pending for
adjudication in O.S.No.207/2011? It is well within
the knowledge of the 7th respondent/Deputy
Commissioner that respondent Nos.1 to 4 have
already filed a suit and have sought relief of
declaration that the sale deeds executed by
Ayyamma in favour of petitioner Nos.6 to 8 are
not binding on them. Unless such a declaration is
granted, I am of the view that respondent Nos.1
to 4 are not entitled to get their names mutated
in the revenue records. The provision of Section
128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
does not contemplate such a procedure to enable
24
a party to get his name mutated to the revenue
record merely on the ground that, he has already
filed a suit.
26. The 7th respondent/Deputy
Commissioner and the 5 t h respondent/Tahasildar
cannot mechanically relegate the purchasers as
well as those parties who are opposing the
mutation based on a registered document to Civil
Court, when a person asserts his right on the
basis of registered document and mutation is
effected strictly in compliance of proviso to
Section 128 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964. The 7 t h respondent/Deputy Commissioner
was not justified in even relegating petitioner
Nos.6 to 8 to work out their remedy in a suit.
There is a registered sale deed executed already
in favour of petitioner Nos.6 to 8. Respondent
Nos.1 to 4 have questioned the same, it is for
respondent Nos.1 to 4 to demonstrate as to how
the registered sale deed would not bind the
25
respondents and hence in such cases, the
authorities cannot be simply relegate even the
party who was acquired a right under registered
document. If such a proposition is accepted, then
the provision of Section 128 of Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964 would become redundant.
27. In this background, I am of the view
that when the registered sale deeds are disputed,
ex-facie for the purpose of Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964, it has to be taken that the
document confers a good title on the petitioners
and the revenue authority have rightly effected
the mutations way back in 1983 and these entries
which are strictly in terms of proviso to Section
128 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 cannot
be disturbed, unless and until there is a decree in
favour of party disputing the registered
documents.
28. The impugned order passed by the 7 t h
respondent/Deputy Commissioner as per
26
Annexure-M confirming the order passed by the
5 t h respondent/Tahasildar as per Annexure-H, in
my view has no legal sanction and the orders of
the 7 t h respondent/Deputy Commissioner and the
5 t h respondent/Tahasildar are in gross violation of
provision of Section 128 of Karnataka Land
Revenue Act, 1964. Respondent Nos.1 to 4 as of
now cannot agitate their rights in a mutation
proceedings and the remedy, if any, is only in
pending suit which is obviously filed by them in
O.S.No.207/2011.
29. The impugned orders passed by the 7 t h
respondent/Deputy Commissioner and the 5th
respondent/Tahasildar as per Annexures-M and H
respectively are also not maintainable since the
mutations effected in favour of petitioner Nos.6
to 8 under M.E.Nos.31 and 30 as per Annexures-
D & F respectively have attained finality and the
same are not challenged till this day.
Accordingly, point Nos.1 and 2 framed by this
27
Court are answered in the affirmative. For the
reasons stated supra, this Court would pass the
following:
: ORDER :
a) The writ petitions are allowed.
b) The order bearing No.Kam/Apeelu/ 33 / 2016-17 Ka.No.22940, dated 03.01.2019 passed by the 7t h respondent/Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-M and the order bearing No.Kandaya:R.R.T:Takararu:25:2015- 16/165 dated 18.08.2015 passed by the 5 t h respondent/Tahasildar as per Annexure-H are quashed.
c) The order bearing No.Kam:RRT:
Apeelu:105:15-16 dated 15.03.2016 passed by the 6th respondent/ Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-J is restored.
d) The entries in the revenue records pertaining to the petition lands in 28 favour of petitioner Nos.6 to 8 would be subject to result of suit pending in O.S.No.207/2011.
In view of the disposal of the above writ petitions, pending applications do not survive for consideration, accordingly disposed of.
SD/-
JUDGE E M/ -