IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NOS.38308-38311/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O LATE SIDDACHAR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE SIDDACHAR AND SIDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
2. SMT. SHARADAMMA W/O LATE RACHACHAR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE SIDDACHAR AND SIDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
3. SMT. JAYALAXMAMMA W/O LATE MARIYACHAR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF LATE SIDDACHAR AND SIDDAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS.
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF KODIYALA KARENAHALLI VILLAGE BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V. RAJANNA, ADVOCATE ) AND:
1. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGAR DISTRICT RAMANAGAR – 571 511.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGAR TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT RAMANAGARA – 571 511.
3. THE TAHASILDAR RAMANAGAR TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT RAMANAGAR – 571 511.
4. SRI. N. KASHINATH PAI S/O N. SRINIVAS PAI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS KODIYALA KARENAHALLI BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGAR TALUK RAMANAGAR – 562 109.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FORR-1 TO R-3) THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE CONCERNED REVENUE RECORDS & QUASH THE ORDER DATED:10.11.10 PASSED BY THE DIST. IN REV. PET. NO.201/07-08 VIDE ANN-A.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties it is taken up for final hearing and also taking into consideration that these writ petitions have been pending from past seven (7) years before this Court.
2. Heard Sri. V. Rajanna, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri.C.N.Kamath, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the records.
3. Issue in these writ petitions revolves around mutation entry in respect of Sy.No.205 of Kodiyala, Karenahalli Village, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, Ramanagara District.
4. Petitioners claims to have purchased 1 acre 20 guntas land a under registered sale deed dated 06.11.1970 from Sri.Ramachari and another bit of land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in same survey number on 19.02.1976 from Sriyuths Rangachar, Bhaskarachar and Brahmachar. On an application filed by the purchaser (deceased Smt. Siddamma) for mutating revenue records, 1 acre 20 guntas is said to have been mutated in her favour and not considering the claim for balance 1 acre 20 guntas, petitioners claiming to be successors in title and also claiming to be in possession of land in question, contended that mutation entries were not made in the revenue records. Also contending that no portion of the property having been alienated by deceased Siddamma or her legal representatives and they get to know about the mutation made in favour of fourth respondent during the year 2006 and they learnt that some fictitious persons without disclosing earlier sale deeds, have got revenue records mutated in their favour without obtaining signatures of legal representatives of late Smt. Siddamma and as such they filed an appeal before the jurisdictional Tahsildar in Revenue Appeal No.461/2006-2007 whereunder M.R.No.69/1997-98 was affirmed and MR No.71/1997-98 was set aside with a direction to the jurisdictional Tahsildar (third respondent herein) to redo the matter. Being aggrieved by said order, fourth respondent has filed a revision petition under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara District, who by impugned order dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure-A) has set aside the order passed by second respondent and affirmed entry M.R.No.71/1997-98. Hence, these writ petitions.
5. Learned Advocates appearing for parties have reiterated their contentions as urged before the authorities below. In fact, Coordinate Bench by order dated 24.07.2019 had directed jurisdictional Tahsildar, who was present before Court to conduct spot inspection of land bearing Sy.No.205 namely, land in question and to submit a report. Today, learned Government Advocate has filed a memo enclosing survey sketch, which is also perused by this Court.
6. Records on hand would disclose that 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.205 was sold by Smt.Siddamma in favour of fourth respondent herein under a registered sale deed dated 29.01.1998. Pursuant to which fourth respondent has submitted a requisition for mutating the revenue records and revenue records has been mutated in the name of fourth respondent as per M.R.No.69/1997-98.
7. In these writ petitions, M.R.No.71/1997-
98 is the subject matter of adjudication. Though a claim is made by petitioners that they are in possession and enjoyment of 3 acres of land in Sy.No.205, fact remains that said Siddamma had sold 1 acre 20 guntas of land in favour of fourth respondent under a registered sale deed on 29.01.1998, pursuant to which M.R.No.69/1997-98 was effected and said order has reached finality. Hence, question of examining said M.R.No.69/1997- 98 or to its correctness and legality would not arise.
8. Insofar as, M.R.No.71/1997-98 is concerned, fourth respondent claims to have purchased another bit of land measuring 1 acre 20 guntas in same survey number i.e., Sy.No.205 under registered sale deed 31.01.1998 from one Sri.K.S.Ramaswamy, S/o. K.M.Siddaiah, who is said to be the original grantee and pursuant to said purchase mutation entry in M.R.No.71/1997-98 was effected in the name of fourth respondent. At this juncture, it would be apt and appropriate to notice memo filed by learned Government Advocate which would clearly indicate that insofar as property purchased by fourth respondent from K.M.Siddappa (GPA holder) to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas is described as Block No.6 and it is also stated that said portion is in possession of fourth respondent. As such claim of the petitioners that they continue to be in possession of Sy.No.205 by virtue of 2 sale deeds referred herein supra, cannot hold water and as such said contention stands rejected.
9. M.R.No.71/1997-98 was effected/ordered on the strength of title deed produced by fourth respondent and this has received attention of first respondent – Deputy Commissioner under impugned order and noticing that by virtue of registered sale deed in favour of fourth respondent she has claimed right, title and interest and as such mutation entry is made in her favour, which was ordered to be effected by the jurisdictional Tahsildar, was not required to be set aside by the Assistant Commissioner by raising a doubt with regard to title and as such order of Assistant Commissioner has been rightly interfered with by the Deputy Commissioner and revision petition filed by fourth respondent has been allowed. As such finding recorded by the Deputy Commissioner does not suffer from any infirmity either on facts or in law calling for interference by this Court. However, it is made clear that petitioners who are claiming title over the land in question i.e., Sy.No.205 to an extent of 1 acre 20 guntas, which is the subject matter of M.R.No.71/1997-98 would be at liberty to urge all such grounds before Civil Court in the event of suit being filed and all contentions of both parties are kept open including issue of limitation, if any.
10. For reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (i) Writ petitions are dismissed.
(ii) Order dated 10.11.2010 (Annexure- A) passed by first respondent is affirmed subject to observations made hereinabove.
SD/- JUDGE DR