IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NO.30077/2019 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. S.N. SHIVARAMAIAH S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS.
2 . SRI. S.N. MURTHY S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS.
3 . SRI. S.N. LAKSHMINARAYAAPPA S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
4 . SRI. S.N. SHANKARAPPA S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.
5 . SRI. S. CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS.
6 . SRI. VIRUPAKSHA S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
7 . SRI. S.N. NAGABHUSHANA S/O LATE NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.
ALL ARE R/AT YELUVAHALLI VILLAGE, VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHOKKAREDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT DISTRICT OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR BEERASANDRA POST, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DIST – 562 135.
3. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPURA SUB DIVISION 1ST FLOOR, TALUK OFFICE DODDABALLAPURA TOWN & TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 135.
4. TAHASILDAR DEVANAHALLI TALUK DEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE RURAL DIST – 562 135.
5. SURESH S/O LATE CHIKKANNA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT YELUVAHALLI VILLAGE VIJAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TALUK – 562 135.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3;
NO NOTICE TO R-4 V/O DATED:07.11.2019) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN RP131/2017 DATED:18.06.2019, AND ORDER PASSED BY R-3 IN RA(D)158/2009-10 DATED:08.06.2015 AND MR 6/2008-09 PASSED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNX-A, B AND C RESPECTIVELY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri.Chokkareddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. No notice is issued to respondent No.5 as petition is being dismissed at the threshold after hearing the learned counsel appearing for parties.
2. Mother of petitioners Smt.Subbamma had acquired title to the property bearing Sy.No.124 measuring 18 ½ guntas of land under a registered sale deed dated 25.06.1969 which land is situated at Vijayapura Amanikere village, Vijayapura Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk which is morefully described in the schedule to the sale deed vide Annexure-F. She did not seek for mutation of revenue records immediately after purchase of said land but claims to have continued in possession of property sold to her, which according to petitioners was Sy.No.174/5, though in the sale deed, property had been described as Sy.No.124. She is said to have expired in the year 1994. During her life time revenue records relating to the property purchased by Smt.Subbamma was not mutated and petitioners are said to have submitted representations to the authorities for mutating revenue records in respect of Sy.No.174/5 and one of such representation dated 26.10.2009 is produced at Annexure-J.
3. However, revenue records relating to Sy.No.174/5 continued in the name of vendor of the Smt.Subbamma i.e., Sri.Venkatappa, S/o Sanjeevanna. As such, fifth respondent claiming to be the grand son of Venkatappa had sought for inheritance Khata being issued in respect of said survey number and accordingly mutation was ordered to be carried out in M.R.No.6/2008-09 on 25.11.2008 in the name of fifth respondent.
4. Grievance of the petitioner is that the village accountant has given a report in M.R.No.6/2008-09 and same was not entered in the mutation register and even the village account of Mandibele circle Vijayapura has also stated to the said effect.
5. It is further stated that sixth petitioner had submitted representation to the third respondent for issuing copy of M.R.No.6/2008-09 along with other relevant documents and sixth petitioner was intimated that M.R.No.6/2008-09 is not available at Bhoomi Centre, Devanahalli Taluk Office. It is also contended by petitioner that jurisdictional Thasildar by endorsement dated 20.08.2009 vide Annexure-P has intimated that no records are available with regard to inheritance Khata and as such intimated the petitioners to challenge the M.R.No.6/2008-09 by issuing endorsement dated 12.11.2009- vide Annexure-Q.
6. Contending that property bearing Sy.No.174/5 was originally belonging to Venkatappa and all revenue records disclosing the same and Venkatappa in turn having sold said property to mother of petitioners they are entitled for revenue records being mutated to their names. It is also contended there has been an improper mentioning of survey number in the sale deed dated 25.06.1969 as Sy.No.124, though boundaries reflected in the sale deed is that of Sy.No.174/5 and possession of land bearing Sy.No.174/5 having been delivered to the petitioner. As such, it is contended that revenue records could not have been mutated to the name of fifth respondent. It is further urged that Assistant Commissioner committed a serious error in dismissing the appeal which has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner without considering the case of petitioner in proper perspective and as such it has resulted in miscarriage in the administration of justice.
7. Sri. Chokkareddy, learned counsel appearing for petitioners has reiterated grounds urged in the writ petition and has prayed for allowing the petition.
8. Per contra, Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents would support the impugned orders.
9. Having heard the arguments of learned Advocates appearing for parties and on perusal of case papers it would clearly emerge from the sale deed propounded by the petitioners relied upon by them namely sale deed dated 25.06.1969 vide Annexure-F the property described thereunder is Sy.No.124. Neither deceased Smt.Subbamma i.e., mother of petitioners nor petitioners from the date of purchase of the property i.e., from the year 1969 till date had got the revenue records in respect of land purchased mutated to their names. In fact Smt.Subbamma during her life time did not get revenue records mutated to her name after she purchased the property under sale deed dated 25.06.1969. On the demise of Venkatappa and based on the revenue records then existing in the name of the name of Venkatapa, fifth respondent claming to be the grand son of Venkatappa sought for revenue records of Sy.No.174/5 being mutated to his name and same has been accepted by the revenue authorities.
10. This Court would not embark upon conducting an enquiry as to whether the revenue records could have been mutated in the name of fifth respondent. The fact remains that petitioners who are claiming right over the property bearing Sy.No.174/5 cannot seek for mutation of the revenue records in respect of said land on the strength of a improper description of survey number in the registered sale deed namely, Survey numbers having been reflected as 124 instead of 174/5. Their remedy is elsewhere namely either they have to get the deed of rectification got executed through legal representatives Sri.Venkatappa or appropriate civil suit will have to be instituted before the competent civil court. As such order passed by the Deputy Commissioner which is to the effect that sale deed relied upon by the petitioner relates to Sy.No.124 and not Sy.No.174/5 and as such mutating revenue records of Sy.No.174/5 in the name of petitioners cannot be found fault with. Said authority has rightly refused to interfere with the order passed by Assistant Commissioner who had affirmed the entry made in M.R.No.6/2008-09. Hence, this Court finds there is no infirmity committed by the Deputy Commissioner in this regard, calling for interference. No other good ground is made out to entertain this petition. Hence, writ petition stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE RU