Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Muniyamma vs The Deputy Commissioner on 2 August, 2022

Author: R Devdas

Bench: R Devdas

                                              -1-




                                                      WP No. 5797 of 2021


                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                        DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                                          BEFORE

                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 5797 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)



                   BETWEEN:
                   1.   SMT MUNIYAMMA
                        W/O LATE LAKSHMAIAH
                        D/O ALLALAPPA
                        AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
                        R/A KANEKALLU VILLAGE
                        JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI
                        HOSAKOTE TALUK
                        BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560067
                                                            ...PETITIONER

Digitally signed   (BY SRI. R.S. RAVI, SR. COUNSEL FOR
by YASHODA
KRISHNAPPA             SRI. NARENDRA D V GOWDA, ADVOCATE)
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA



                   AND:
                   1.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                        BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
                        KANDAYA BHAVANA
                        BENGALURU-560009

                   2.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
                        BENGALURU SUB DIVISION
                        KANDAYA BHAVAN
                        BENGALURU-560009

                   3.   SRI MOHAN CHALVA
                        S/O C PADMANABHAIAH
                              -2-




                                      WP No. 5797 of 2021


     AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
     R/A NO.23, 11TH MAIN ROAD
     JAYANAGAR 4TH BLOCK
     BENGALURU-560011

4.   SRI NANJAPPA
     S/O KRISHNA
     AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
     R/A BANDAPURA VILLAGE
     KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
     BENGALURU DISTRICT-562106

5.   THE TAHSILDAR
     ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL
     BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-562106
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. PRATHIMA S. HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1, R2 & R5
    SRI. K.VASU, ADVOCATE C/R3
     NOTICE TO R4 D/W V/O DTD. 02/08/2022)


     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DTD.11.2.2021 MADE IN R.P.NO.109/2016-17 PASSED
BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND GRANT AN INTERIM
ORDER TO STAY THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO
THE ORDER DTD.11.2.2021 MADE IN R.P.NO.109/2016-17
PASSED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.

     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, 2 and 5. Respondent No.3 -3- WP No. 5797 of 2021 has entered appearance through learned counsel Sri K.Vasu, by filing a caveat petition. Notice to respondent No.4 is not required for the following reasons:
2. The petitioner who claims to have acquired title in respect of the land in question by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 21.10.1967 approached the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner by filing an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, in the year 2015 seeking to remove the names of the contesting respondents herein which were entered in the land revenue records consequent to mutation entries made in MR No.8/1989-90 and MR No.98/1997-98.

Admittedly, the mutation entries made in favour of the contesting respondents are also by virtue of the registered instrument which was reported to the revenue authorities immediately after the execution of the registered documents. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal setting aside the mutation entries in MR No.8/1989-90 and MR No.98/1997-98 and directed entry -4- WP No. 5797 of 2021 of the name of the petitioner by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 21.10.1967. However the contesting respondent approached the revisional authority the Deputy Commissioner in RP No.109/2016-17. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 11.02.2021 at Annexure-E.

3. The Deputy Commissioner has held that the entries made in the name of the contesting respondents was also consequent to the registered instrument and therefore at the instance of the petitioners herein, the said entries could not be removed, unless and until there is a declaration made by a competent civil court upholding the title of the petitioners herein.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri R.S.Ravi, appearing for the petitioners would contend that there is no time limitation prescribed in Section 128 of the Act for reporting acquisition of title/rights under a registered instrument. Attention of this Court is also drawn to Rule 67 of the -5- WP No. 5797 of 2021 Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 and it is submitted that the revenue authorities are duty bound to enter the objections raised at the hands of the party questioning the mutation entries.

5. On hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent authorities and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is no infirmity that could be found in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. No doubt, Section 128 of the Act makes provision for collecting penalty and entering the names of the parties in whose favour rights are bestowed under a registered instrument. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it is found that there are registered instruments in favour of the contesting respondents also and their names were entered in terms of the registered instrument way back in the year 1989-90 and 1997-98, wherein the title to the property has changed two hands. Although the registered instrument -6- WP No. 5797 of 2021 in favour of the petitioners is dated prior to the other two instruments, nevertheless even in terms of Section 128 of the Act, if there was no subsequent transaction on the land and no other entries were made, the revenue authorities could have considered collecting penalty at the hands of the petitioners while entering their names by removing the names of their vendor. That is not the position at present. Two mutation entries have been made by the revenue authorities one in the year 1989-90 and the other in the year 1997-98 on the strength of the registered instrument entries in the revenue records. The Deputy Commissioner is therefore right in holding that it would not be permissible for the revenue authorities to go into the disputed question of title. The Deputy Commissioner has rightly set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner while holding that the petitioner has to approach a competent civil court and obtain a declaration. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. -7- WP No. 5797 of 2021

Needless to observe that if a declaration is sought by the petitioners, the civil court is required to decide the case on its merits and not go only by the entry in the revenue records. The entry in revenue records have only primitive value.

Sd/-

JUDGE KLY