IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NOS.3836-3837 OF 2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SRI MANJUNATHA S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. SRI. N.MARUTHI S/O LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS BOTH R/AT NO.58, CHIKKABANAVARA VILLAGE YESHWANTHAPURA HOBLI BENGALURU NORTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 090 (BY SHRI VISHWANATH R.HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE – 560 001 REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN BANGALORE – 560 009 ... APPELLANTS 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN BANGALORE - 560 009 4. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE NORTH TALUK (ADDITIONAL) YELAHANKA BANGALORE – 560 064 5. THE MYSORE STONEWARE PIPES & POTTERIES LTD. SOLADEVANAHALLI VILLAGE CHIKKABANAVARA POST BANGALORE – 560 090 REP. BY ITS MANAGER SRI. TRIVIKRAMA ... RESPONDENTS ---
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 27.08.2019 IN W.P.NOS.12878- 879/2019 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT REJECTING THE WRIT PETITIONS AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITIONS AS PRAYED FOR AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT By the impugned order, the writ petitions filed by the appellants arising out of the proceedings for the mutation entry have been rejected on the ground that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the appellants in challenging the mutation entry made in 1976-77. An appeal was preferred before the Assistant Commissioner by the appellants thirty years thereafter.
2. After having heard the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order. His submission is that the learned Single Judge has noticed that the petitions filed by the appellants in the year 2017 for challenging the acquisition are pending and, therefore, the writ petitions ought to have been heard along with the writ petitions filed for challenging the acquisition proceedings.
3. It is well settled that the mutation entries and the revenue entries are made for fiscal purposes and the same do not affect the title to the property. Notwithstanding the mutation entries, the aggrieved party can always approach the Civil Court and establish title. If the appellants succeed in the writ petitions filed for challenging the acquisition proceedings, by virtue of paragraph 13 of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has reserved liberty to the appellants to apply for making mutation in the revenue records on the basis of the order passed in the writ petitions.
4. Hence, there is no reason to interfere with the discretionary order passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE AHB