IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION NO.43129/2017(KLR-RES) BETWEEN :
1. SMT. MEENAMMA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2. SRI HARISHA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. SRI M SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 4. SMT M. VINUTHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS THE FIRST PETITIONER IS THE WIFE AND THE PETITIONER NOs.2 TO 4 ARE THE CHILDREN OF LATE C. MUNIYAPPA, ALL ARE RESIDING AT No.42, 1ST MAIN ROAD, CHOLURPALYA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI R.CHANDRANNA, ADVOCATE) AND :
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPUR, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 561 203 3. THE THASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK, DEVANAHALLI, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110 4. SRI N. JAYARAM MAJOR, S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA, POLICE QUARTERS, NEAR POLICE STATION, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560 023 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR.T.L., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 TO 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2017 MADE IN REVISION PETITION No.117/2015-16 [ANNEXURE-A] PASSED BY RESPONDENT No.1 AND ORDER DATED 19.11.2012 MADE IN CASE No.RA.(De).112/2012-13 [ANNEXURE-B] BY RESPONDENT No.2.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Petitioners herein are impugning the order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the first respondent – Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, in Revision Petition No.117/2015-16 (Annexure ‘A’ to the writ petition), wherein the revision petition filed by petitioners herein has been dismissed and the order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura sub-division, Doddaballapura, in case No. R.A.(De):112/2012-13 (Annexure ‘B’ to the writ petition) allowing the appeal filed by respondent No.4 herein – N. Jayaram has been confirmed.
3. The brief facts of the case leading to this writ petition are as under:
3.1 It is the case of petitioners that one Narasappa (mentioned as Narayanappa in the order of respondent No.1), son of Nanjunda Bhatta, was the owner in possession of land measuring 09 Acres 36 guntas in Sy. No.112 of Bidaluru village, kasaba hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, having acquired the same under darkasth auction. Narasappa, during his lifetime, sold the said land to one Muninagappa of Sulibele village, Hosakote Taluk, under registered sale deed dated 02.05.1951. Muninagappa in turn sold the said land to Chowdappa, son of Muniyappa, under registered sale deed dated 04.11.1954. It is stated that there was a partition of the family properties amongst the sons of Chowdappa, namely Sri C. Muniyappa and Sri C. Venkatesh and in the said partition, each of them was allotted 04 Acres 38 guntas of land in the said Sy. No.112 under registered partition deed dated 15.05.1974.
3.2 Muniyappa, the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners Nos.2 to 4, during his life time was in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 04 Acres 38 guntas in Sy. No.112. After the death of her husband, petitioner No.1 on her behalf and on behalf of her children, made an application before the Revenue Authorities for mutating her name in the revenue records in respect of the said land and her name was mutated vide M.R. No.H.48/2011- 12 (Annexure ‘G’ to the writ petition).
3.3 When the matter stood thus, the fourth respondent herein said to be the purchaser of land measuring 04 Acres 38 guntas out of 09 Acres 36 guntas in the said Sy. No.112 from the aforesaid C. Muniyappa, son of Chowdappa, under the sale deed dated 29.10.1975 registered before Sub- Registrar, Devanahalli, on 03.12.1975, filed an appeal, which was numbered as R.A.(De):112/2012-13, before the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner impugning the order bearing No.R.R.582 of Tahasildar, Devanahalli taluk. In the said appeal, respondent No.4 herein sought for a direction to the Tahasildar to effect khata in his name in respect of the aforesaid land.
3.4 Perusal of the records would indicate that in the proceedings before respondent No.2 herein – Assistant Commissioner, though notice was issued to the respondent – Tahasildar, he was not present at the time of hearing. The Assistant Commissioner after considering the grounds urged in the appeal and the documents produced by the appellant – respondent No.4 herein, has observed that: originally, Chowdappa, the father of C. Muniyappa was the owner of land measuring 09 Acres 36 guntas in Sy. No.112; in the partition that took place amongst the children of Chowdappa, land measuring to an extent of 04 Acres 38 guntas in Sy. No.112 had fallen to the share of C. Muniyappa under registered partition deed dated 04.06.1974; the appellant – respondent No.4 herein purchased the said land from C. Muniyappa under sale deed dated 29.10.1975, which was registered as document bearing No.2181/1975-76 before Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli, on 03.12.1975 and pursuant to the said registered deeds, the revenue authorities were bound to change entries in the revenue records. Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 19.11.2012 (Annexure ‘B’ to the petition), has allowed the appeal and directed the respondent - Tahasildar to effect khata in the name of appellant - respondent No.4 herein after considering the relevant documents.
3.5 The said order dated 19.11.2012 was subject matter of challenge in Revn.Petn. No.117/2015-16 by petitioners herein before respondent No.1 – Deputy Commissioner. They contended that they are the absolute owners of 04 Acres 38 guntas of land in Sy. No.112 and they were not made parties before Assistant Commissioner in the appeal filed by respondent No.4 herein – N. Jayaram. The Assistant Commissioner based on forged and fabricated documents, has passed the order dated 19.11.2012 directing Tahasildar to effect khata in the name of respondent No.4 herein.
3.6 In the said revision petition, the Deputy Commissioner after issuing notice to both the parties and considering their respective contentions, by order dated 28.03.2017, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioners herein while confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 19.11.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. The petitioners have referred to the suit in O.S. No.1055/2012 filed by one Smt. Ramakka and others on the file of learned Civil Judge, Devanahalli, against petitioners herein for declaration that they are the absolute owners of 04 Acres 38 guntas in Sy. No.112 of Bidaluru village (subject matter of the present writ petition) and permanent injunction. In the said suit, respondent No.4 herein is said to have filed an application to get himself impleaded as party.
5. When this writ petition is taken up for consideration, it is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner No.1 herein has filed separate suit in O.S. No.476/2016 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC., Devanahalli, for declaration that: she is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 04 Acres 38 guntas in Sy. No.112 (subject matter of the present writ petition) and alleged sale deed dated 29.10.1975 registered before the Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli, as document No.2181/75-76 dated 03.12.1975 executed in favour of defendant No.2 therein- N. Jayaram (respondent No.4 herein) is null and void and the same is not binding on her and also for consequential relief of perpetual injunction against the defendants therein. Copy of the amended plaint in the said suit is produced as Annexure ‘K’ to the writ petition.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Perused the material on record. On going through the same, it is seen that the Assistant Commissioner has ordered for effecting khata in the name name of respondent No.4 in respect of the land measuring 04 Acres 38 guntas in Sy. No.112 on the basis of the sale deed executed by C. Muniyappa, the husband of petitioner No.1 herein, in favour of respondent No.4 herein, on 29.10.1975, which was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli, on 03.12.1975. The said order dated 19.11.2012 appears to be just and proper. When admittedly, the petitioners herein are not the executants of the sale deed dated 03.12.1975, registering the revenue entry in respect of the land in question in the name of respondent No.4 herein, who was appellant in the proceedings bearing No.R.A.(De):112/2012-13 before the Assistant Commissioner, cannot be found fault with by this Court merely for the reason that after the death of the vendor viz., C. Muniyappa, his legal representatives should have been made as party in the said proceedings. Unless the said sale deed dated 29.10.1975 registered on 03.12.1975 is cancelled or annulled by the competent Court of law, revenue authorities cannot deprive the purchaser i.e., respondent No.4 herein from getting the khata effected in his name based on the said registered sale deed. Admittedly, whenever any sale transaction takes place, Form ‘J’ will be filed along with the sale deed executed by the vendor in favour of the purchaser. The revenue authorities on receipt of Form ‘J’ from the jurisdictional sub-registrar are bound to register the khata of the land / property conveyed under the sale deed in favour of the purchaser after calling for objections. It is clearly seen that in the instant case, the said exercise is not carried out by the revenue authorities necessitating the fourth respondent herein to approach the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner seeking registering his name as owner and cultivator in column Nos.9 and 13 of the record of rights, tenancy and crops (RTC) based on the said registered sale deed in proceedings i.e., R.A. (De).No.112/2012-13, which is rightly allowed by the second respondent – Assistant Commissioner by order dated 19.11.2012 and the same has been rightly confirmed by the first respondent – Deputy Commissioner in revision petition No.117/2015-16. Therefore, the question of interfering with the impugned orders does not arise in this writ petition.
7. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. Learned Additional Government Advocate to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma