S. Shivanna vs The Special Tahsildar And Ors. on 24 October, 2005
In this regard, the
decision of this Court in the case of S SHIVANNA vs THE SPECIAL 7
TAHSILDAR supra, would cover the case on all fours, in that, it is :
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.28 seconds)Golappa vs Malakappa on 8 December, 1994
--_ the Assistant Commissioner, who in turn, has cancelled the entries
male earlier, in view of the sale deeds of the year 1948-49 and it is
S
14
on his direction that the Tahsildar has passed an order effecting
entries in favour of C Shankar in the revenue records. "Hence, the
by the petitioners can only be the subject matter of a civil suit end ce
cannot be adjudicated before the revenue authorities. The counsel oe
would seek to place reliance ona decision n of this Court in GOLAPPA
vs MALAKAPPA ILRF 1995 Karnataka, 1 . 18 wherein it was held that
Sections 128 and 129 oit the Karnataka Land 'Revenue Act, 1964 do
not prescribe any period for filing ¢ aL. appiication 'seeking mutation in
case of acquisition. of a right. Reliance was. also placed on a decision
in SRI HOLIYAPPA. va_ THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, ILR 1998
Karnataka, 1554 to the effect that a statutory duty is imposed on the
revenue offier 'to effect 'change of mutation in respect of rights
acquired ander registered sale deeds, even, if such acquisition is not
reported te be, as a person acquiring right by virtue of a registered
'document 'is exempted, an obligation to the Court. The counsel
"woud also rely on a Full Bench Judgment in C N NAGENDRA SINGH
"Ve THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ILR 2002 Kamatake,
"2756 for the proposition that revenue courts have no jurisdiction to
os go into question of title.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 128 in Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [Entire Act]
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964
The Punjab Land Revenue Rules
Holiyappa vs The Deputy Tahsildar, Guledgud And ... on 29 October, 1997
13. The decisicns i ca) 'the case e of Gollappa » vs Malakappa supra
and Holiyappa vs The Deputy Tehsildar supra, are sought to be
drawn out of context. An 'applicant seeking mutation, when there is
no dispute as to the title ander which such an applicant claims, or
the proviso to Secticn (128° imposiag a statutory duty on the revenue
officer to offect change | of mutation, could be pressed into service
when. there is 20 dispute or claim by a third party notwithstanding
1