Karnataka High Court
Vijayalakshmi vs The Deputy Commissioner Gulbarga on 28 August, 2019
Author: S. Sujatha
Bench: S. Sujatha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
WRIT APPEAL No.1789/2007 (KLR-RES)
Between:
1. Vijayalakshmi W/o Narasayya
Age about 54 years
Occ: Household & Agriculture
R/o Yadgir
Dist. Gulbarga
2. Shivakumar S/o Amruth
Age about 38 years
Occ: Agriculture & Business
Dist. Gulbarga
...Appellants
(By Sri Chaitanyakumar C.M., Advocate)
And:
1. The Deputy Commissioner
Gulbarga District
Gulbarga
2. The Assistant Commissioner
Yadgir Sub-Division
2
Yadagir, Dist. Gulbarga
3. The Tahsildar
Yadagir Taluka, R/o Yadagir
Dist: Gulbarga
4. The Revenue Inspector
Post: Yadagir
Dist: Gulbarga
5. Siddayya S/o Sabayya
Age about 50 years
Occ: Agriculture & Service
R/o Yadgir, Dist: Gulbarga
...Respondents
(By Smt. Archana P. Tiwari, AGA for R1 to R4;
Sri V.S. Patil, Advocate for R5)
This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order passed
in the Writ Petition No.17242/2006 dated 14.08.2007 and
consequently be pleased to allow the appellants' writ petition as
prayed for.
This appeal is coming on for hearing this day, S.
SUJATHA J., delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This intra Court appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14.08.2007 in W.P.No.17242/2006.
3
2. The appellants claiming to be the joint owners in possession of land bearing Sy.No.160/Aa measuring 3 acres 23 gunats of Mundargi village in Yadagir taluk of Gulbarga district had filed W.P.No.17242/2006 challenging the orders passed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 in revision petition and the appeal proceedings respectively, relating to the mutation entries effected by the respondent No.3 with respect to the properties in question. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this writ appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the provisions of Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('Act' for short) inasmuch as the mandatory requirement of issuing individual notices to the parties concerned before effecting the mutation entries. It is submitted that O.S.No.82/1996 was filed by the appellant No.1 against her father and the appellant No.2 seeking for 4 the relief of declaration of title and injunction in respect of five properties owned by their father Sri Sharanappa wherein the subject property was also included. The Trial Court had granted injunction order in favour of the appellant No.2 restraining Sri Sharanappa from alienating the suit properties. In the mean time, the respondent No.5 herein had given application before the respondent No.4 requesting to enter his name in the record of rights of the subject property based on Vatni Patra. The respondent No.4 had passed an order to enter the name of respondent No.5 in the ROR without issuing notice to the appellants herein. Being aggrieved, the appeals were filed by the appellants which came to be dismissed without proper appreciation of the facts and law. Indeed a representation was given before the revenue authorities not to affect any change in the revenue records pursuant to the interim injunction granted by the Trial Court in O.S.No.82/1996. During the pendency of the suit proceedings, Sri Sharanappa died and his LRs. were 5 brought on record. Finally, the said suit came to be decreed by way of a compromise petition, declaring that the appellants/plaintiffs and defendants are the joint owners, the possessors of the suit properties. Despite the same, the revenue entries got mutated in the name of the respondent No.5, which ought to have been considered by the learned Single Judge.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supports the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the order of the Revenue Authorities impugned, in the writ petition.
5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
6. Section 129 (2) of the Act contemplates to give written intimation to all the persons appearing from the Record of Rights or Register of Mutations to be interested 6 in the mutation, and to any other person whom the prescribed officer has reason to believe to be interested therein. It is not in dispute that the names of the appellants were not appearing in the Record of Rights or Register of Mutations. The temporary injunction has been granted in favour of the appellants in O.S.No.82/1996 restraining Sri Sharanappa - defendant therein from alienating the subject property. Change of mutation entry and the proceedings initiated by the appellants pursuant to the said change of ROR relates to the applications filed by the respondent No.5 herein based on the Vatni Patra.
7. It is well settled law that Revenue Entries do not confer any title to the property. In the proceedings before the revenue authorities initiated by the respondent No.5, prima facie, it appears there was no reason for the prescribed officer under Section 129(1) of the Act to believe the appellants to be interested therein. The said entry made in the revenue records on 20.12.1998 was 7 challenged by the appellants before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2004, which came to be dismissed on the ground of delay and further confirmed by the revisional authority - respondent No.1. This inordinate delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority - respondent No.2 not being satisfactorily explained, confirmation of the same by the learned Single Judge cannot be held to be unjustifiable. The merits of the case can be examined only on condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the appellate authority. However, even to be construed on the merits as contended by the learned counsel for the appellants, on violation of Section 129(2) of the Act, it is hard to accept the same for the reasons aforementioned. It is significant to note that no further proceedings are initiated by the appellants pursuant to the decree said to have been passed by the competent Civil Court.
8
8. Hence, for the foregoing reasons, no jurisdictional error is found in the order of the learned Single Judge. In the result, writ appeal stands dismissed.
It is needless to observe that the observations made herein are confined only relating to the proceedings initiated by the respondent No.5 seeking for effecting change of mutation entries relating to the properties in question.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Srt