Karnataka High Court
Mrs T P Geetha vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 June, 2017
Author: Ravi Malimath
Bench: Ravi Malimath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ON THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE, 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
WRIT PETITION NO.37240 OF 2012(KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
MRS.T.P.GEETHA
W/O MR.T.P.KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
RESIDING AT TARAHUNASE,
JALA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE FOR
M/S.DSK LEGAL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
2
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR
BENGALURU NORTH (ADDITIONAL) TALUK,
YELAHANKA,
BENGALURU - 560 064.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI T.S.MAHANTHESH, AGA)
*****
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING
TO QUASH THE AFORESAID ORDER DATED 24.7.2012
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER, DISMISSING THE REVISION PETITION IN
R.P.NO.282 OF 2010-2011 VIDE ANNEXURE-A HERETO
ETC.,
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The case of the petitioners is that one H.S.Shamarao, was the absolute owner of the property bearing Sy.No.87 situated at Tarahunase, Jala Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk to an extent of 5 acres. The 3 records stood in his name. He sold the land to one Pillappa on 10-7-1969. In terms of a settlement deed dated 5-1-1978 a land measuring 1 acre 27 guntas was allotted to his wife Akkayamma. All the revenue entries were subsequently changed. The petitioner purchased 15 ¾ guntas from Akkayamma by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 22-11-2003. Thereafter, he sought to enter her name in the record of rights. The Assistant Commissioner by the impugned order held that the land is a gomal land and rejected the request. Aggrieved by the same, a revision was filed before the Deputy Commissioner which was dismissed. Hence, the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that eversince the last five decades the records are in the name of the respective owners as on that date. There is no dispute about the same. Transfer of title to the petitioner is in a manner known to law. Therefore, the authorities exceeded their jurisdiction in rejecting the said plea. That 4 the respondent-State does not have any authority to determine the status of the land in a proceedings under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the impugned orders are unsustainable. On the other hand, the learned Government Advocate disputes the same.
3. Heard learned counsels.
4. The proceedings are one for change of name in the Mutation Register. The authorities would have to consider the same based on the available material. The available material indicates that the petitioner became the owner of the land in question in terms of the registered sale deed dated 22-11-2003. What was claimed by the petitioner was a gomal land. The State was entitled to initiate proceedings for the said purpose under Section 67 sub Section(2) of the Land Revenue Act. On initiation of such proceedings a finding would be recorded as to whether the lands are gomal or not. Such a finding cannot 5 be recorded in a proceeding under Section 128 of the Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the finding of the Assistant Commissioner and as confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner that the land in question is a gomal land requires to be set aside. However, the respondent-State is always at liberty to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under Section 67 with regard to the determination whether the land is a gomal or not. As of now, it is suffice to hold that the finding of the authorities that the land is a gomal is beyond their jurisdiction.
5. Consequently, the petition is allowed. The order of the 3rd respondent-Assistant Commissioner dated 22-1-2010 vide Annexure-K and the order of the 2nd respondent-Deputy Commissioner dated 24-7-2012 vide Annexure-A are set aside. The Assistant Commissioner is directed to enter the name of the petitioner for the land in question. However, the same shall remain in the records 6 subject to any further enquiry or otherwise to be initiated by the State.
Rule made absolute.
SD/-
JUDGE Rsk/-