IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA WRIT PETITION No.14372/2018(KLR) BETWEEN MR. WALTER STEPHEN MENDES SON OF BASIL MENDES, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT MENDES PLAZA, BUNTS HOSTEL ROAD, MANGALORE, D.K. DISTRICT-575 003. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 6TH FLOOR, GATE NO.3, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANGALORE-575 001 DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT – 575 001 4. SATISH SHETTY SON OF SHARADA SHETTY, AGED: MAJOR, RESIDING AT NAGA SHETTY'S COMPOUND KADRI HILLS, BEJAI POST, MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575001 5. MR. VICTOR SON OF JOSEPH, AGED: MAJOR, PROP: AUTO CARE CENTRE, OPP: KPT POLYTECHNIC, KADRI HILLS, BEJAI, MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 001.
6. MR. SUSHAN SON OF JACOB MATHEWS, AGED: MAJOR, OPP: CIRCUIT HOUSE, KADRI HILLS, BEJAI, MANGALORE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT-575 003 7. SMT. DULCIN WIFE OF MICHAEL D SOUZA, NAGA SHETTY COMPOUND, KADRI, MANGALURU D.K DISTRICT-575003.
8. MR. CANCUTTE SON OF JOSEPH D' SOUZA, AGED : MAJOR NAGA SHETTY COMPOUND, KADRI HILLS, BEJAI, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT-575 003.
9. SMT. SHARADA SHETTY, DAUGHTER OF NAGAMMA SHETTY, AGE: MAJOR 10. SMT. PUSHPA M. SHETTY D/O. M.B. SHETTY, AGE: MAJOR 11. SRI DINESH M. SHETTY S/O. M.B. SHETTY, AGE: MAJOR 12. SUJATHA SHETTY D/O. M.B. SHETTY, AGE: MAJOR 13. SUNITHA SHETTY D/O M.B. SHETTY, AGE: MAJOR 14. NARESH M. SHETTY S/O M.B. SHETTY, AGE: MAJOR 15. CHANDRASHEKAR SHETTY S/O. SUSHEELA SHETTY, AGE: MAJOR 16. PURUSHOTHAM SHETTY S/O. SUSHEELA SHETTY, AGE: MAJOR 17. RAMESHWARI S. SHETTY D/O. SUSHEELA SHETTY, AGE: MAJOR 18. POORNIAM RATHAN D/O. SUNDARA SHETTY, AGE: MAJOR 19. SUPARNA SHETTY D/O. SUNDARA SHETTY, AGE: MAJOR 20. SRI DEVIPRASAD SHETTY S/O. SUNDARA SHETTY, AGE: MAJOR RESPONDENT NOs.9 TO 20 ARE ALL R/AT NAGA SHETTY COMPOUND, KADRI HILLS, BEJAI POST, MANGALURU-575 003. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI G BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR CAVEATOR - R4, SRI VENKATESH DODDERI, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.2.2018 PASSED IN C.DIS.RAP. 197/2016-17 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND THEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY 2ND RESPONDENT IN RRT.SR.207/2016-17 DATED 29.11.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner has sought for quashing of the order dated 29.11.2016 (Annexure ‘B’ to the petition) passed by the third respondent (stated as 2nd respondent in the prayer portion of the petition), namely, Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru sub-division, Mangaluru, in appeal No.CDis.RRT(2).SR:207/2016-17, and the order dated 20.02.2018 vide Annexure ‘A’ to the petition passed by the second respondent (stated as 1st respondent in the prayer portion of the petition), namely, Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, in Revision Petition No.C.Dis.RAP.197/2016-17.
2. According to the petitioner, one Smt. Nagamma Shedthi / Smt. Nagamma Shetty was the owner of various properties situate at Kadri village, Mangaluru, including the property bearing Sy. No.266 measuring 02 Acres 86 cents. The fact that Smt. Nagamma Shedthi was the owner of the aforesaid land is not in dispute. The petitioner herein is claiming himself to be the purchaser of the land measuring 02 Acres 86 cents in Sy. No.266 situate at Kadri B village. According to him, different sub-numbers were assigned to Sy. No.266 as could be seen in four sale deeds, which are at Annexures ‘F’, ‘G’ ‘H’ and ‘J’ to the petition.
3. The records would indicate that Smt.Nagamma Shetty filed declaration under section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the ULC Act’) on 15.09.1976 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.266/1B2(P) measuring to an extent of 02 Acres 62 cents situate at 87B Kadri village, said to have acquired by her under registered sale deed dated 04.08.1971, before the Special Deputy Commissioner and Competent Authority, Mangalore Urban Agglomeration. In that behalf, proceedings were initiated in ULC.SR.157/76-77 (Kadri). A draft statement under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act was issued to the declarant – Smt. Nagamma Shetty on 02.01.1982 determining an extent of land measuring 2 Acres 08¼ cents (8427-46 Sq. Mts.) as excess land held by her. Smt. Nagamma Shetty filed her objections to the draft statement on 22.02.1982.
4. The Special Deputy Commissioner and Competent Authority by his order dated 16.05.1983, rejected the said objections and passed an order to prepare the final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act on the basis of the draft statement made under Section 8(1) of the ULC Act. Accordingly, final statement under Section 9 of the ULC Act was issued to Smt. Nagamma Shetty on 10.06.1983. Smt. Nagamma Shetty challenged the final statement before the Divisional Commissioner, Mysore, who by his order No.MA:ULC:4/83-84 dated 10.12.1984 dismissed the said appeal confirming the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner and Competent Authority dated 16.05.1983. Subsequently, notification under Section 10(1) of the ULC Act was published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 07.03.1985 and notification under Section 10(3) of the ULC Act was issued on 10.04.1985.
5. Meanwhile, Smt. Nagamma Shedthi during her life time had executed registered Will dated 21.06.1984 vide Annexure ‘C’ to the petition bequeathing her properties including the aforesaid land in favour of her children, namely, (1) M.B. Shetty (2) Smt. Susheela Shetty (3) Smt. Sharada Shetty and (4) B. Sunder Shetty.
6. Smt. Nagamma Shetty being aggrieved by the order dated 10.12.1984 passed by the Divisional Commissioner confirming the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner and Competent Authority, preferred writ petition in W.P. No.6086/1985. In the said writ petition, learned single Judge of this Court after considering the contentions of the learned in his order dated 22.08.1991 (Annexure ‘D’ to the petition) has observed as under:
“xxx Therefore, the only point for consideration that really arose before the Competent Authority was to give a finding whether the property was a family property and whether the other members of the family had a share in it and if that argument was accepted, what would be the unit each of the member of the family would be entitled to? The argument that is advanced in this Court is based on the very same point, namely, the property being a family property, all the members of the family are entitled to retain the property in accordance with ULC Act.”
xxx Therefore, the important point that the Competent Authority was required to decide was the claim of the petitioner as to the property to be retained by the members of the declarant’s family. It looks to me that this point was not highlighted by the petitioner either before the Competent Authority or before the Appellate Authority. However, the contention put forward in the writ petition finds a place in the objections. Therefore, having regard to the pleadings and contention raised by the petitioner in the writ petition, this is a fit case to remand the matter to the Competent Authority to give a finding on this issue.”
Accordingly, learned single Judge of this Court, allowed the said writ petition by quashing the order dated 16.05.1983 passed by the Competent Authority and the order dated 20.12.1984 passed by the Divisional Commissioner and remitted the matter to the Competent Authority to make a fresh order in the light of the observations made in the said order.
7. After remand, in proceedings No.ULC.SR.157/76-
77 (Kadri) pursuant to the direction of this Court, fresh enquiry was conducted by the Competent Authority on 01.10.1993 to ascertain as to whether the property in question was a family property as contended by the declarant – Smt. Nagamma Shetty in her writ petition and in the objections filed by her to the draft statement under section 8(1) of the ULC Act. The enquiry revealed that the declarant – Smt. Nagamma Shetty expired on 07.04.1993 leaving behind her four children, who were majors on the appointed date. Sri M.B. Shetty was brought on record as the legal representative of Smt. Nagamma Shetty. The enquiry also revealed that Smt. Nagamma Shetty during her life time had sold certain lands in favour of several persons and considering the same, computed the excess vacant land.
8. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner and Competent Authority after hearing the learned counsel for Sri M.B. Shetty, son of Smt. Nagamma Shetty, and considering the material on record, passed an order on 30.08.1994 (Annexure ‘E’ to the petitions) to the effect that the declarant – Smt. Nagamma Shetty and her children were holding land measuring to an extent of 91–12 Square Meters in Kadri village as excess land and that further action would be taken to resume the land as per law.
9. It is stated that during the pendency of the said proceedings, after coming into force of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Ordinance, 1999, which was published in the Gazette of India on 12.01.1999 / Pausa 21, 1920, the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, itself got repealed. By virtue of the said Ordinance, all proceedings relating to any order made or purported to be made under the Principal Act pending immediately before the commencement of the said Ordinance before any Court, Tribunal or Authority stood abated and the possession of the land with the original owners was held to be valid.
10. It is in this background it is stated that after the ULC proceedings being dropped and Smt. Nagamma Shedthi having died on 07.04.1993, her children, who are beneficiaries under the Will dated 21.06.1984, jointly / separately have executed four sale deeds, details of which are stated in the ensuing para, in favour of the petitioner herein under Annexures ‘F’, ‘G’, ‘H’ and ‘J’ to the petition.
11. Annexure ‘F’ to the petition is copy of registered sale deed dated 18.08.2005 executed by: (1)Sri M.B. Shetty (son of late Smt. Nagamma Shetty) represented by his general power of attorney (GPA) holder, Sri Jagannath Shetty;
(2) Smt. Susheela Shetty (daughter of Smt. Nagamma Shetty); (3) Smt. Sharada Shetty (daughter of Smt. Nagamma Shetty); (4) Sri B. Sunder Shetty (son of Smt. Nagamma Shetty), represented by his GPA holder, Ganesh Shetty and (5) Suresh Shetty (son of Smt.Sharada Shetty) in favour of the petitioner herein, namely, Sri Walter Stephen Mendis, conveying two items of property described in the schedule to the sale deed i.e., portion of land bearing R.S. No.266/1B2 measuring 52.50 cents and portion of land bearing R.S. No.266/1B2 measuring 17.50 cents totally measuring 70 cents. It is stated that item No.1 was acquired by vendor Nos.1 to 4 jointly as per the terms of registered Will dated 21.06.1984. Item No.2 was acquired by vendor No.5 - Suresh Shetty as per the terms of registered settlement deed dated 07.11.2001.
12. Annexure ‘G’ to the petition is copy of registered sale deed dated 18.08.2005 executed by Smt.Susheela Shetty in favour of the petitioner herein conveying portion of land bearing R.S. No.266/1B2 measuring 49 cents. Annexure ‘H’ is copy of registered sale deed dated 18/08/2005 executed by Smt. Sharada Shetty in favour of the petitioner herein conveying another portion of land bearing R.S. No.266/1B2 measuring 49 cents. Annexure ‘J’ is copy of registered sale deed dated 16.07.2005 executed by Sri M.B. Shetty represented by his General Power of Attorney (GPA) holder in favour of the petitioner herein conveying portion of the land bearing R.S. No.266/1B2 measuring 23 cents.
13. It is the aforesaid sale transactions, which are sought to be challenged by Sri Satish Shetty (respondent No.4 herein), who is one of the grandsons of Smt. Nagamma Shedthi / Smt. Nagamma Shetty through her daughter Smt. Sharada Shetty initially in filing the original suit in O.S. No.41/2014 (Annexure ‘K’ to the petition) against his mother, Smt. Sharada Shetty and the petitioner herein before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn), Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada. In the said suit, Sri Satish Shetty sought for declaration that the sale deed document No.P.233/2005-06 dated 18.08.2005 insofar as it related to item No.2 described in the schedule to the said sale deed executed by defendant No.1 (Smt. Sharada Shetty) in favour of defendant No.2 (petitioner herein) was null and void. In addition, he also sought for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant – petitioner herein.
14. The petitioner has referred to the suit in O.S. No.28/2015 (Annexure ‘L’ to the petition) filed by Sri Chandrashekar Shetty and Sri Purushothama Shetty represented by his general power of attorney holder, Sri Satish D. Shetty, against the petitioner herein before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mangaluru, for declaration that the sale deed document No.2427/2005-06 dated 18.08.2005 in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 49 cents in R.S. No.266-1B2 was a concocted document and void ab initio and not binding on the plaintiffs therein. They also sought for the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendant – petitioner herein. One more suit in O.S. No.99/2015 (Annexure ‘M’ to the petition) was filed Sri Suresh D. Shetty, Sri Sathish D. Shetty and Sri Harish D. Shetty, children of late Dogu Shetty, against the petitioner herein and Smt. Sharada Shetty before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada, seeking to set aside the Will dated 28.04.1984 executed by late Smt. Nagamma Shedthi in favour of the second defendant – Smt. Sharada Shetty insofar as it related to Schedule ‘D’ property in the Will i.e., 37 cents of land in Sy. No.266-1B2 situate at Kadri village and for declaration that the sale deed vide document No.2428/2005- 06 dated 18.08.2005 executed by the second defendant – Smt. Sharada Shetty in favour of the petitioner herein was null and void. It is stated that when the aforesaid suits in O.S. Nos.41/2014, 28/2015 and 91/2015 reached the stage of evidence, at the instance of legal heir/s of deceased Smt. Nagamma Shedthy, the said suits were dismissed as withdrawn by the trial Court.
15. However, respondent No.4 herein – Satish Shetty pursued the matter by filing appeal (Annexure ‘N’ to the petition), which was numbered as No.CDS.RRT(2).SR.207/2016-17, under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, before the third respondent - Assistant Commissioner. He sought for an order that the Will executed on 21.06.1984 by Smt. Nagamma Shetty bequeathing certain properties in favour of her children was null and void and the subsequent sale deeds executed by the legal heir/s of Smt. Nagamma Shetty on the basis of the said Will were also null and void. He also sought for an order to effect mutation in the RTC as per the order of the Deputy Commissioner in proceedings No.ULC.SR.157/76-77 (kadri) dated 30.08.1994 (Annexure ‘E’ to the petition) in the names of the original legal heirs of deceased Smt. Nagamma Shetty. In the said appeal, petitioner herein, Mr. Walter Stephen Mendes, was arrayed as respondent No.1 and respondent Nos.5 to 20 herein were respondent Nos.2 to 17 in the said appeal. In addition to the sale transactions made by the legal heir/s of Smt. Nagamma Shetty in favour of the petitioner herein, sale transactions made in favour of other persons were also called in question in the said appeal.
16. The Assistant Commissioner by his order dated 29.11.2016 (Annexure ‘B’ to the petition), allowed the said appeal and directed Tahasildar, Mangaluru Taluk, to enter the names of the legal heirs of Smt. Nagamma Shedthy i.e., respondent Nos.6 to 17 therein (respondent Nos.9 to 20 herein) in the revenue records in respect of the land measuring to an extent of 2.62 Acres in Sy. No.266/1B2 and 0.76 acre.
17. The petitioner herein being aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru, preferred revision petition in C.Dis.RAP.197/2016- 17 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, against respondent Nos.4 to 20 herein. The Deputy Commissioner, by his order dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure ‘A’ to the petition), dismissed the revision petition while upholding the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in C.Dis.RRT(2).SR.207/16-17 dated 29.11.2016. As against the concurrent finding of both the revenue authorities, this writ petition is filed.
18. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the material on record including the order sheet maintained in this petition, which discloses that on 27.04.2018, coordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim stay of the impugned orders until further orders.
19. On giving careful consideration to the grounds urged in the writ petition and on going through the impugned orders passed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 which are at Annexures ‘A’ and ‘B’ respectively to the petition, this Court is unable to understand the competence of respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru, in observing that the sale deeds vide Annexures ‘F’, ‘G’, ‘H’ and ‘J’ to the petition executed by the legal heir/s of Smt. Nagamma Shetty in favour of the petitioner herein are not valid and consequently, directing Tahasildar, Mangaluru, to register the names of the legal heirs of Smt. Nagamma Shetty, namely, respondent Nos.6 to 17 therein (respondent Nos.9 to 20 herein) in the pahani in respect of the land in Sy. No.266/1B2 situate in Kadri ‘B’ village, Mangaluru Taluk, in suppression of the sale deeds even though such power was not conferred on him under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. In the order dated 26.11.2016 (Annexure ‘B’ to the petition), respondent No.3 – Assistant Commissioner has proceeded on the basis that lands belonging to Smt. Nagamma Shedthi / Smt. Nagamma Shetty were resumed by the Government vide order dated 10.06.1983 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, in proceedings No. ULC.SR.157/1976-77, which was confirmed by Divisional Commissioner, Mysuru, in M.A.ULC.4/1983-84 dated 10.12.1984 and in the light of the same, Smt. Nagamma Shetty could not have executed registered Will dated 21.06.1984 bequeathing her properties in favour of her children. Assistant Commissioner though expressly has not set aside the sale deeds, he assumes that the same are not valid and the same cannot be given effect to, which finding is outside the scope and competence of the Assistant Commissioner. However, when such order is taken up before the Deputy Commissioner in revision petition in C.Dis.RAP.197/2016-17 vide Annexure ‘A’ to the petition, he has confirmed the same by holding that the lands belonging to the declarant – Smt. Nagamma Shedthy were seized by the Government under the ULC Act and she without any manner of right or interest over the said lands, had executed registered Will dated 21.06.1984 in favour of her children and same was illegal and contrary to law.
20. It is clear that the Assistant Commissioner was acting as if he is Civil Court. When such irregularity is brought to the notice of the second respondent, Deputy Commissioner, he has reiterated the very same stand which appears to be strange inasmuch as the aforesaid action of these two revenue authorities is in usurping the power of the Civil Court in declaring the sale deeds vide Annexures ‘F’, ‘G’, ‘H’ and ‘J’ to the petition are non-est in the eye of law, is unsustainable for the reason that such power does not lie either with the third respondent – Assistant Commissioner or with the second respondent – Deputy Commissioner. The competence of the revenue authorities is only to verify the correctness or otherwise of the revenue entries. It is seen that the revenue authorities have committed grave error in holding that Smt. Nagamma Shedthi / Smt. Nagamma Shetty did not have competence to execute registered Will dated 21.06.1984, which is beyond their power.
21. However, Sri G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent argued in support of the impugned orders. He would submit that if the petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned orders, he has no right to file the writ petition challenging the same and he should have approached the Civil Court. To substantiate his aforesaid defence, he has relied upon two judgments rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the matter of: Payappa Nemanna Huded vs. Chamu Appayya Huded and others reported in (1969 (2) Mys.L.J page 198) and Srimanmaharaja Niranjana Jagadguru Mallikarjuna Murugarajendra Mahaswamy vs. Deputy Commissioner reported in ILR 1986 Karnataka page 1059.
22. It is seen that in the matter of Payappa Nemanna Huded (referred supra), the order which was challenged in the said writ petition (W.P. No.2353/65) was an order made under the Record of Rights Act by the Deputy Commissioner, whereby he directed the name of the first respondent therein to be entered in the record of rights. In the said circumstances, Division Bench of this Court has observed that the said order of Deputy Commissioner was by no means conclusive and it was always open to the petitioner to institute a suit for the establishment of his title and in that suit the order made by the Deputy Commissioner could not have any effect or efficacy, since in that suit the title would be decided on the material and evidence which the parties produced in support of their title. It was further observed by Division Bench that even if they were to allow the writ petition, the consequence that followed was that instead of the petitioner therein instituting a suit for the establishment of his title, respondent No.1 therein had to do so. Accordingly, Division Bench declined to interfere with the order impugned in the said writ petition.
23. In Srimanmaharaja Niranjana Jagadguru Mallikarjuna Murugarajendra Mahaswamy’s case (referred supra), Division Bench was dealing with the question of law as to whether under sub-section 3 of section 136 of the Act, the Deputy Commissioner had the power to interfere with an appellate order made by the authority exercising the appellate power under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act?. The Division Bench has considered the provisions of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961, (for short, ‘the Act’) and while answering the said question of law in the negative has observed in para No.8 of its order as under:
“8….
The provision under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Act, it appears to us, is a safeguard provided against any illegal entries made without the knowledge of the parties or to the prejudice of the State. But in respect of a case which is registered as a dispute and is decided by contest and the matter was appealed against before the prescribed authority under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act and there has been an appellate order, the intention of the Legislature is, the party aggrieved by the appellate order can only resort to the remedy of filing a civil suit as permitted under the proviso to Section 135 of the Act. Any interpretation of sub-section (3) of Section 136 as conferring power to interfere with an appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner made under sub-section (2) of Section 136 would render the words ‘and his decision shall be final’ otiose.”
The finding rendered by two Division Benches of this Court in the aforesaid two matters on earlier occasions is with reference to the interference by the revenue officials regarding mutation entries, which should be challenged in a Civil Court. But, in the instant case, it is evident that respondent Nos.2 and 3, namely, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have taken the onus of deciding the title of the original owner, Smt. Nagamma Shedthi / Smt. Nagamma Shetty with reference to the land bearing Sy. No.266/1B2 as well as her competence to execute registered Will dated 21.06.1984 bequeathing her properties in favour of her children based on certain recitals in the order dated 22.08.1991 (Annexure ‘D’ to the petition) passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.6086/1985 as if that is a basis for them to decide the rights of the family members of Smt. Nagamma Shedthi / Smt. Nagamma Shetty with reference to distribution of her property. While making such an attempt, Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have gone to the extent of holding that the sale deeds at Annexures ‘F’, ‘G’, ‘H’ and ‘J’ to the petition are null and void, which is beyond their competence. Similarly, finding given by respondent Nos.2 and 3 that Smt. Nagamma Shedthi could not have executed registered Will dated 21.06.1984 as her lands were seized by the Government in the proceedings under the ULC Act, is beyond their competence. When the revenue authorities exceed their jurisdiction in passing such orders, it is unnecessary that the person aggrieved by the same, should approach the Civil Court. It is well within his / her right to approach this Court and demonstrate that there is abuse of power by the authorities in trying to reach the matters beyond their competence.
24. In that view of the matter, this Writ Petition is allowed. Consequently, the order dated 29.11.2016 (Annexure ‘B’ to the petition) passed by the third respondent - Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru sub-division, Mangaluru, in appeal No.CDis.RRT(2).SR:207/2016-17 and the order dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure ‘A’ to the petition) passed by the second respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru, in revision petition in C.Dis.RAP.197/2016-19 are hereby quashed.
25. Learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to file memo of appearance within two weeks from today.
Sd/- JUDGE sma