Karnataka High Court
Sri. B. S. Mohan vs The Deputy Commissioner on 28 July, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 13873 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 13873 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. S. MOHAN
S/O. LATE SANNAMARI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
BIDARAMALE KOPPALU VILLAGE,
BEKKALALE DAKALE,
KOPPA HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 425.
...PETITIONER
Digitally (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE)
signed by
JUANITA
THEJESWINI AND:
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA-571 401.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANDYA SUB-DIVISION,
MANDYA-571 401.
3. SRI. BADREGOWDA
URF VEERANNE GOWDA
S/O. LATE BADREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
4. SRI. RUDRAIAH
S/O. LATE BADREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
-2-
WP No. 13873 of 2022
5. SRI. B. VEERANNE GOWDA
S/O. LATE BADREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS NO.3 TO 5 ARE
RESIDENTS OF
BIDARAMALE KOPPALU VILLAGE,
BEKKALALE DAKALE,
KOPPA HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK,
MANDYA DISTRICT-571 425.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA S HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 & R2
SRI. HARSHA G, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. RADHA,
ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH /
SET ASIDE THE ORDER AT ANNX-F PASSED BY R-1 IN
R.P.NO.81/2019 ON 31.05.2022. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER
TO STAY THE OPERATION AND EXECUTION OF THE ORDER
DTD. 31.05.2022 IN R.P.NO.81/2019 PASSED BY THE R-1 THE
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AT MANDYA AT ANNX-F.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondents No.1 and 2. Learned Counsel Smt.R.Radha has entered appearance for respondent No.3 by filing a Caveat Petition. Notice to respondents No.4 and 5 is not necessary for the following reasons;-3- WP No. 13873 of 2022
2. The petitioner had approached respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner, Mandya Sub-Division, by filing a appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, calling in question three mutation entries made way back in the year 1979, 1991 and 1995-
96. The mutation entries were made in the name of the father of respondent No.3-Sri.Bhadregowda. It is admitted that Sri.Bhadregowda, the father of respondent No.3 and Sri.Puittegowda, grandfather of the petitioner herein were brothers. Mutation entries having taken place at an undisputed point of time and during the lifetime of the petitioner's grandfather and father, they have not been challenged the same. For the first time, the petitioner sought to challenge the same before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2016. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and cancelled the mutation entries in M.R.No.18/1979-80, M.R.No.51/1991- 92 and M.R.No.63/1995-96 and directed the Tahsildar to take action in accordance with law to enter the name of -4- WP No. 13873 of 2022 the original khatedars. Aggrieved, respondent No.3 approached the Deputy Commissioner invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner having noticed that the petitioner herein had sought to challenge the mutation entries which were made way back in the year 1979, 1991, 1995, held that the Assistant Commissioner could not have entertained the appeal beyond the period prescribed in law. Consequently, the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.3 was allowed while setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
3. On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondent No.3, learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that the mutation entries have stood for a long time and the real dispute is regarding the title to the property. The Aggrieved person -5- WP No. 13873 of 2022 is required to approach the competent civil court and get a declaration regarding his/her title. Once such a declaration is made by the competent civil court, the name of the successful party will be entered in the land records.
4. For the reasons stated above, this Court having found no infirmity in the impugned order, the writ petition stands dismissed. All contentions are kept open including the right of the aggrieved to approach a competent civil court.
Ordered accordingly.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file Memo of Appearance within period of four weeks from today.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL