Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the proceedings in RRT.SR.399/2020, proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner, and Sub-divisional Magistrate, Mangaluru Sub-division, Mangaluru [the first respondent] under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and also for quashing the first respondent's order dated 25.08.2020 in such proceedings.

2. The petitioners contend that Mr. Vincent D'Sa was the absolute owner of the property in survey No.9/3 measuring 1.42 acres of Kodialbail village, Mangaluru, and the revenue record for this land was made in his name in KR No.480/1916-70. Mr. Vincent D'Sa's name is shown in Column 9 of RTC for this land. Mr. Vincent D'Sa died on 22.12.1998 leaving behind his Last Will and Testament dated 25.01.1995 bequeathing in favour of the petitioners an extent of 35 cents out of the total extent of 1.42 acres in Sy.No.9/3 of Kodialbail village, Mangaluru [and this extent of 35 cents is referred to as the Subject Property]. There is no dispute about the bequeath in favour of the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners' siblings have sworn to the affidavit of affirmation on 11.8.2003 admitting the bequeath under the said Last Will and Testament. Insofar as the remaining extent of lands in survey No.9/3 of Kodialbail village, Mangaluru, Mr. Vincent D'Sa has transferred the same under different Sale Deeds.

3. It is seen from the undisputed annexures to the writ petition that:

3[a] the third to sixth respondents have challenged the revenue entry in favour of Mr. Vincent D'Sa in KR No.480/69-70 in the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka land Revenue Act,1964 (for short, the Act) in C. Dis. RRT:SR:112 / 2009 - 10. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 12.04.2010 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter for reconsideration by the Tahsildar.

3[c] the contesting respondents viz., the seventh and the eighth respondents impleaded themselves in the proceedings in R.P. No.108/2013-14 asserting that they had entered into an agreement to purchase with the third to sixth respondents. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision petition in R.P. No.108/2013-14 by the order dated 11.08.2015, and consequentially, the proceedings in C.Dis. RRT:SR:112/2009-10 before the Tahsildar is restored and registered in RRT/SR/51/2016 -17.

7. It is obvious from the rival claims that there are questions about title to the Subject Property and the seventh and eighth respondents' rights thereto, and these are questions of facts which will have to be decided by the competent civil Court. In fact, the seventh and eighth respondents are categorical even in their pleadings before the Deputy Commissioner in RRT.SR.No.399/2020 that the question of title is involved in the suit filed by them in O.S.N.837/2010, which is a suit for specific performance. It is settled law that if questions of title are pending consideration, the revenue entries will have to follow upon adjudication of such questions of title. Further, the third to sixth respondents under whom the seventh and eighth respondents claim right, title and interest in the Subject Property, have not impugned the Tahsildar's order dated 01.04.2018 in RRT/SR/51/2016-17.