Next > IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NOs.13040-13042/2019(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1 . SRI. VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT UMMALLU VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI DODDANALLALA POST HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
2 . SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKAKURUTI VILLAGE, DODDAKURUTI POST NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
3 . SMT. VIJAYAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT UMMALLALU VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI DODDANALLALA POST HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY IT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR – 563 101.
3 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR - 563 101.
4 . THE TAHSILDAR MALUR TALUK, MALUR.
5 . SRI. DODDABYRAPPA S/O LATE MARIAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
6 . SRI. CHOWDAPPA S/O LATE MARIAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
7 . SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
8 . SMT. PILLAMMA W/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING A CHIKKA ULLURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI DASARAHALLI POST, HOSAKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4;
SRI. A.G. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5 AND R-8 AND ALSO FOR R-6 AND R-7) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE NO.R.A.P./120/2017, DATED:18.02.2019 VIDE ANNX-A BY ALLOWING THE W.P.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard Sri. S.Vishweshwaraiah, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri.Y.D.Harsha learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Sri.A.G.Nagaraja, who have entered caveat appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 8 and who has also undertaken to appear on behalf of respondent Nos.6 to 7. Perused the case papers.
2. The dispute in this petition revolves around land bearing Sy.No.14/2, measuring 2 Acres 15 guntas situated in Gerupura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District. Mutation entry –MR No.3/1998- 99 carried out on 05.01.1999 came to be challenged by the petitioners in R.A.No.272/2014-15 contending that said entry which has been made by Thasildar was based on a document propounded by respondent Nos.5 to 8 which is prima facie fabricated, concocted document. Said appeal found favour by the Assistant Commissioner i.e., third respondent and by order dated 25.02.2017 said appeal came to be allowed by setting aside mutation entry M.R.No.3/1998-99. On perusal of said order it would also disclose that undisputedly there was a delay in filing the appeal, inasmuch as the M.R. entry relates to the year 1998-99 and appeal i.e., R.A.No.272/2014-15 had been filed during the year 2014-15. However, there is no reference with regard to the application for condonation of delay having been heard, adjudicated and condoned or otherwise. Be that as it may. The fact remains, petitioners were successful before third respondent- Assistant Commissioner.
3. Being aggrieved by said order, the contesting respondent Nos.5 to 8 filed R.A.P.No.120/2017 contending interalia that revenue authorities- Assistant Commissioner had committed a grave error in ignoring the registered document namely, registered sale deed which was in their favour and as such Assistant Commissioner could not have allowed the appeal by setting aside the M.R.No.3/1998-99.
4. Deputy Commissioner after having noticed that land inquestion originally belong to one Sri.Munikempaiah, who is none other than the great grand father of petitioners and he was succeeded by his son Sri. Mariyappa and Sri.Narayanappa in whose names revenue records of the land in question was mutated by way of inheritance Khata M.R.No.1/1992-
93 and said Narayanappa in whose favour M.R.No.1/1992-93 had been made had sold said property under a registered sale deed dated 30.10.1972 in favour of the father of the respondent Nos. 5 to 8. As such, revenue authorities had no option but to mutate revenue records in favour of the father of respondent Nos. 5 to 8 who possessed a registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the said subject property. As such, he had set aside order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.No.272/2014-15 dated 25.02.2017 by allowing R.A.P.No.120/2017 on 18.02.2019 and after order of Assistant Commissioner came to be passed revenue records had been mutated in the name of petitioners and in the light of observation having been made by the Assistant Commissioner that respondent Nos. 5 to 8 herein had to work out their right in a civil suit which resulted in said persons filing suit in O.S.No.228/2017 before Senior Civil Judge, Malur. Hence, Sri. S.Vishweshwaraiah, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners has vehemently contended that such entry carried out pursuant to the order of Assistant Commissioner is to be continued which can be subject to the result of suit. Where as, Sri.A.G.Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondents supporting the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner would seek for dismissal of the petition.
5. In the light of the aforestated facts and rival contentions, it is to be noticed at this juncture that effect of a registered document namely registered sale deed produced before revenue authority and steps to be taken by such authorities in that regard.
6. Lack of executive will to implement the mandate of provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, has not only resulted in flooding of litigations before this Court, but has also resulted in unwarranted litigations cropping up before Revenue authorities, which can be easily resolved by proper implementation of the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964. Insofar as issue relating to mutating revenue records are concerned, it is governed and controlled by Section 128(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. A person acquiring any right as a holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant of the land or assignee of the rent or revenue thereof by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise has to report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to the prescribed officer of the village within three months from the date of such acquisition and said officer shall has to give a written acknowledgement of receipt of the report to the person so making it.
7. First proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 128 of the Act would indicate that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person having charge of his property can make the report to the prescribed officer. Second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 128 would clearly indicate that any person acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document shall be exempted from the obligation of reporting about such transaction to the prescribed officer.
8. Sub-section (4) of Section 128 of the Act mandates that Registering officer would not be required to registered such document presented by any person who acquires a right in a land as a holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant or assignee of the rent or revenue thereunder, unless such person liable to pay the registration fee for such document also pays to the registering officer such fees as may be prescribed for making necessary entries in the record of rights and registers referred to Section 129 of the Act. It also mandates that on registration of the document, registering authority has to make a report of the acquisition of the right to the prescribed officer. Thus, on registration of a document of an agricultural land, it is the duty of the registering authority to send or forward an intimation to the revenue authorities and on the basis of revenue authorities are required to change the entries in the revenue records in respect of land which has been evidenced by a registered document.
9. A plain reading of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 makes it explicitly clear that it is the duty of the registering authority to make a report of the acquisition of such right to the prescribed officer since document is registered.
10. Section 129 of the Act mandates that prescribed officer should enter in the register of mutation every report made to him under sub-Section (1) of Section 128 or intimation received by him under sub-Section (2) or sub-Section (4) of Section 128. Under sub-Section (2) of Section 129 prescribed officer is required to make an entry in the register of mutation and simultaneously post the same namely, copy of the entry so made in a conspicuous place in the village chavadi and has to intimate all persons whose names appear from the record of register of mutation to be interested in mutation, and to any other person whome they have reason to believe to be interested therein. Any such objections so received to any entry made under sub-Section (1) of Section 129 in the register of mutations either orally or in writing, the prescribed officer would be required to enter particulars of the objections in a register of disputed cases as required under sub-Section (3) of Section 129. The objections so entered, will have to be adjudicated by holding an enquiry and the proceedings can be concluded by recording such objections by the prescribed officer in the register of mutations as prescribed under sub- Section (4) of Section 129. The mode, manner, method and process of such enquiry can be traced to sub- Section (5) to sub-section (7) of Section 129. It would also be relevant to note that the relevant rules which govern the steps to be taken by the registering officer as well as the jurisdictional Thasildar with regard to mutation entry to be effected are Rules 44 and 63 and they read as under:
Next >