Karnataka High Court
Smt. Nagamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 11 August, 2022
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
WP No. 20298 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 20298 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAGAMMA,
W/O LATE MUNICHENNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS,
2. SRI. MUNIRAJU,
S/O LATE MUNICHENNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
BOTH ARE R/AT OBLAHALLI VILLAGE,
Digitally
NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
signed by
JUANITA
THEJESWINI
HOSKOTE TALUK,
Location:
HIGH
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 122.
COURT OF
KARNATAKA ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.P.BHUVAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
DISTRICT BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR,
BEERASANDRA VILLAGE,
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK - 562110.
2. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER,
DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION,
DODDABALLAPURA
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-561203
-2-
WP No. 20298 of 2021
3. THE TAHASILDAR,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
HOSAKOTE - 560 067.
4. SRI. NARYANAPPA,
S/O SRI. MALLESHAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT KARAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 122.
5. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA,
W/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
R/AT OBLAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT -562122.
6. SMT.SUBBALAKSHMAMMA,
W/O NARYANASWAMY,
D/O LATE MUNICHENNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/AT ATTIVATTA,
JADDI DASARADHALLI, HOSKOTE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
7. SRI.VIJAYKUMAR M.,
S/O LATE MUNICHENNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
8. SRI.NAGESH M.,
S/O LATE MUNICHENNEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESPONDENTS 7 AND 8 ARE
R/AT OBLAHALLI VILLAGE,
NANDAGUDI HOBLI,
HOSKOTE TALUK,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 122.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SESHU V., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3;
-3-
WP No. 20298 of 2021
SRI.A.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI.R.SHASHIDHARA, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8;
R5 NOTICE NOT ORDERED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 25.10.2021 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN
REVN PETITION O.61/2021 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE - A AND ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned order dated 25.10.2021 passed in Revision Petition No.61/2021.
2. The petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner raising an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, in a dispute bearing R.A.(H)No.65/2016-17 challenging the mutation entries made in the name of the contesting respondents in M.R. No.52/1995-96. The Assistant Commissioner proceeded to hold that though the contesting respondents acquired title over the land in question under a registered -4- WP No. 20298 of 2021 instrument dated 01.02.1978 followed by another registered instrument dated 14.02.1996, nevertheless, since the earlier Katha stood in the name of the petitioners herein in terms of a registered sale deed dated 09.06.1972 and the then Kathedar Sri.Munichennegowda had not executed the sale deed dated 01.02.1978 or the sale deed dated 14.02.1996, the Assistant Commissioner proceeded to hold that no title had passed on to the contesting respondents herein. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the mutation entries in terms of M.R. No.52/95-96 were directed to be cancelled and the names of the petitioners were directed to be entered in the land revenue records. The contesting respondents approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing a revision petition in Revision Petition No.61/2021, and the Deputy Commissioner proceeded to pass the impugned order.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order has been passed without hearing the -5- WP No. 20298 of 2021 petitioners and on that ground alone, the impugned order is required to be set aside.
4. Per contra, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the Assistant Commissioner could not have entertained the appeal filed after a belated period of nearly 20 years after the mutation entries were made in the land revenue records. Moreover, it is not for the revenue authorities to decide the title of the parties and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that the aggrieved persons have to approach the competent Civil Court and get a declaration at the hands of the Civil Court.
5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that although it is contended by the petitioners that they were not heard by the Deputy Commissioner before passing the impugned order, nevertheless, the decision of -6- WP No. 20298 of 2021 the Deputy Commissioner is in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the contesting respondents is right in his submission that the petitioners could not have approached the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in the year 2016-17 questioning a mutation entry made in the year 1995-96 in M.R.No.52/95-96. Time and again, this Court has held that the revenue authorities cannot decide the title of the property. If it is the contention of the petitioners that no right title or interest passed to the contesting respondents under the gift deed dated 01.02.1978 or the sale deed dated 14.02.1996, nevertheless, these questions are required to be considered by the competent Civil Court in a duly constituted suit filed at the hands of the aggrieved persons. It is the Civil Court alone which can declare the title of the property. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that infact, the petitioners have filed O.S.No.431/2012 on the file of the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru seeking -7- WP No. 20298 of 2021 declaration of their title. However, the said suit was withdrawn on 31.07.2021.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have filed a miscellaneous petition seeking to recall the order of withdrawal. Nevertheless, as noticed herein above, if the petitioners seek to have their names entered in the land revenue records, it shall be done only after a declaration is made by the competent Civil Court declaring the right, title and interest of the petitioners in the land in question. So long as such a declaration is not obtained by the petitioners, they shall not be permitted to approach the revenue authorities to have their names entered in the land revenue records. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE rv