IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P. NO.18811/2019 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI. T.V. SURESH S/O LATE T.R. VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT THIPPURU VILLAGE AND POST DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGLAURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
(BY SRI. V.F. KUMBAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PODIUM BLOCK, VISVESHWARIAH TOWER, BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DODDABALLAPUR SUB DIVISION DODDABALLAPUR - 561 203.
3. THE TAHASILDAR DODDABALLAPUR TALUK DODDABALLAPUR BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
4. SRI. PATELLAIAH SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ... PETITIONER SMT. PADMAVATHAMMA W/O PATELLAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/AT THIPPURU VILLAGE AND POST, DODDABELAVANGALA HOBLI, DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 561 203.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; NO NOTICE TO R-4) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 IN R.P.NO.150/2017 DATED:23.10.2017 VIDE AT ANNX-F AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN R.A(DBP)NO.115/2015-16 VIDE AT ANNX-D DATED:13.10.2017.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. V.F. Kumbar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3. No notice is issued to respondent No.4 for the reason that petition is not being admitted and at the threshold, it is being dismissed for the reasons indicated herein below.
2. Petitioner’s father claims to have purchased the land measuring to an extent of 1 gunta in Sy.No.29/1 and 2 guntas of land in Sy.No.29/2A under registered sale deeds dated 13.05.1970 and 13.07.1978 respectively. Insofar as land measuring 1 gunta, no application was made either by petitioner or his father for mutating the revenue records in his favour. However, insofar as 2 guntas land is concerned an application came to be submitted to jurisdictional Sub- Registrar, which came to be registered in M.R.No.88/1978-79 and it came to be rejected. However, for reasons best known, petitioner’s father did not challenge the same. Hence, Assistant Commissioner has opined that after a period of 40 years petitioner has sought for mutating his name in the revenue records. Accordingly, he has dismissed the appeal filed against order passed in M.R.No.88/1978- 79.
3. Though Sri. V.F.Kumbar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner would vehemently contend that petitioner continues to be in possession of land which has been purchased by his father under the sale deeds of 1970 and 1978, fact remains that from the date of purchase till date names of petitioner or his father has not appeared in the revenue records. As such after a lapse of 40 years petitioner cannot agitate the said issue that too without challenging the impugned order. However, it is open for petitioner to challenge the said order before the Assistant Commissioner and would also be at liberty to workout his rights by filing suit, if so desired. The Deputy Commissioner has rightly rejected the revision petition on these grounds, which order does not suffer from any infirmity either in law or on facts calling for interference.
No grounds. Writ petition stands rejected.
SD/- JUDGE DR