Karnataka High Court
Sri Venkataramana Devaru vs The State Of Karnataka on 17 August, 2012
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012
BEFORE:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.V. SHYLENDRA KUMAR
Writ Petition No.15165 of 2007 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI VENKATARAMANA DEVARU
OF SRI VENKATARAMANA TEMPLE,
CAR STREET,
MANGALORE - 575 001
REP. BY ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE
SRI P.RAMACHANDRA PRABHU,
S/O JANARDHANA PRABHU,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
R/AT V.T. ROAD,
MANGALORE - 575 001 ... PETITIONER
[By M/s. A Keshava Bhat & K Shrikrishna, Advs.]
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE SUB-DIVISION,
MANGALORE TALUK, D.K.
3. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
MANGALORE TALUK,
TALUK OFFICE,
MANGALORE.
2
4. SRI K KAMALAKSHA PURUSHA
S/O ANNAPPA PURUSHA,
MAJOR,
R/AT YEYYADI,
BEJOI POST, OPP: ITI,
MANGALORE, D.K. ... RESPONDENTS
[By Sri E S Indiresh, HCGP for R1 to R3;
Sri K Sanath Kumar Shetty, Adv. for R4]
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET-ASIDE THE
IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MANGALORE DT. 3.8.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND DIRECT THE
R1 TO R3 TO DELETE THE NAME OF THE R4 FROM THE RTCs IN
RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE LAND AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
This writ petition is only in respect of revenue entry relating to an extent of 30 cents of land in TS No.144 of Kodiyalbail Village, Mangalore Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, which stood in the name of Venkataramana Devaru of Sri Venkateshwara Temple represented by its Managing Trustee for ages, but came to be changed to the name of fourth respondent one Kamalaksha Purusha, son of Annappa Purusha as per Order dated 3.8.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mangalore Sub-Division, 3 Mangalore, on the premise that the predecessors in interest of the fourth respondent had mulgeni rights in respect of the subject lands under the Temple; that one predecessor of the fourth respondent as per the Will dated 17.4.1919 bequeathed such rights in the name of fourth respondent and having settled this property in favour of the fourth respondent as per settlement dated 15.11.1959 etc.
2. Writ petition is filed on the premise that such rights had never seen the light of the day at any point of time; that they are not reliable nor valid documents in law and at any rate, the Assistant Commissioner could not have mutated the revenue entries to the detriment of the petitioner and to the advantage of the fourth respondent without even issue of notice to the petitioner for want of opportunity etc.
3. Writ petition had been admitted by issue of rule in the year 2009 and notice had been issued. Respondents 1 4 to 3 are represented by Sri. E S Indiresh, learned Government Pleader and the fourth respondent is represented by Sri. Sanath Kumar Shetty, Advocate.
4. Statement of objections have also been filed on behalf of fourth respondent.
5. Application in IA No.1/2011 for additional documents is filed by the petitioner, which in my considered opinion, is not necessary to examine further and is dismissed having regard to the fact that the writ petition is taken up for examination only for the reason that the Assistant Commissioner has acted in the manner not either provided for under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 nor has acted in a fair manner.
6. If the fourth respondent is claiming right, title and interest to the subject property as successor in interest and through a Will of his grandfather, it is only proper that such rights are got determined before a civil court 5 and as a consequence to such determination of title to the subject property, the fourth respondent could have got the revenue entries mutated.
7. Revenue authorities do not have the power or authority to either recognize title, confer title or declare title in respect of any person, but are only required to act pursuant to such recognition in law otherwise which exists already.
8. It is only for this reason this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-M is quashed by issue of writ of certiorari.
9. It is open to the fourth respondent to get his right, title and interest determined before the civil court and seek suitable entries to be made in the revenue entries.
Sd/-
JUDGE AN/-