SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Kar) 371

Karnataka High Court
S.HALAPPA - Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SHIMOGA SUB-DIVISION, SHIMOGA - Respondent
Decided On : 12-01-92
W.A. : 1357 of 1992

Advocates:
M.R.RAJAGOPAL, N.K.Gupta, S.V.Prakash

Jurisdiction of revenue authorities to decide title relating to immovable property and the appropriate forum for addressing such matters.

Headnote:

Jurisdiction - Land Revenue Act - [Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Section 136(2)] - The court held that the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to decide the title relating to an immovable property and that such matters should be addressed in a civil court. The court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the previous orders, and directed the mutation of the petitioner's name in respect of the land bearing survey number 82/2, subject to the right of the fourth respondent to have his title determined or the sale deed rectified.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant sought to quash an order related to the mutation of his name in land records, which was objected to by the fourth respondent based on a sale deed discrepancy. The tahsildar and assistant commissioner concluded that the sale deed related to a different survey number than mentioned, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's application.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to decide the title relating to an immovable property and that such matters should be addressed in a civil court. The court allowed the writ appeal, set aside the previous orders, and directed the mutation of the petitioner's name in respect of the land bearing survey number 82/2, subject to the right of the fourth respondent to have his title determined or the sale deed rectified.

Issues: Jurisdiction of revenue authorities to decide title relating to immovable property, discrepancy in sale deed survey number, and mutation of petitioner's name in land records.

Ratio Decidendi: The revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide the title relating to an immovable property, and such matters should be addressed in a civil court. The period of limitation for seeking rectification of a sale deed or any other relief shall be computed from the date of the order of the tahsildar when a mistake in the sale deed is discovered.

Final Decision: The writ appeal is allowed, the previous orders are set aside, and the mutation of the petitioner's name in respect of the land bearing survey number 82/2 is directed, subject to the right of the fourth respondent to have his title determined or the sale deed rectified.

K. A. SWAMI, J.

( 1 ) THOUGH this appeal has come up for orders, having regard to the fact that it can be disposed of on a short point it is heard for final disposal,

( 2 ) THIS appeal is preferred against the order dated 24-2-1992 passed by thelearned single judge in writ petition no. 4654 of 1992.

( 3 ) THE learned single judge has rejected the writ petition. Hence, the petitioner inthe writ petition has come up in this appeal.

( 4 ) IN the writ petition, the petitioner sought for quashing the order dated 7-1-1992bearing no. P. d-a. 107/1990-91 passed by the assistant commissioner, shinroga sub-division, shimoga and the order dated 15-10-1990 bearing no. Nada. rr. tcr. 59:90-91 passed by the deputy tahsildar, nada kacheri, kallihal, bhadravathi taluk. The proceeding was initiated before the tahsildar, nada kacheri by the appellant/petitioner for mutating his name in respect of s. No. 82/2 on the death of his ancestor. That was objected to by the fourth respondent on the ground that an extent of 1 acre 30 guntas comprised in s. No. 82/2 was sold by the ancestor of the appellant under a registered sale deed dated 13th march, 1972. The tahsildar found that though the sale deed mentioned s. No. 82/1, however it related to s. No. 82/2 because the ancestor of the appellant had no right to sell any portion comprised in s. No. 82/1, therefore the sale deed should be construed as pertaining to s. No. 82/2, as such, no right or interest had remained with eshwarappa, in the land bearing s. No. 82/2 to be succeeded to by the appellant/petitioner on the death of eshwarappa. Consequently, he dismissed the application.

( 5 ) IN the appeal preferred before the assistant commissioner under section136 (2) of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') the assistant commissioner also came to the conclusion that the land that was mentioned in the sale deed was s. No. 82/1 but as the vendor had no right, title or interest in s. No. 82/1 but, he had right, title and interest in s. No. 82/2, therefore the sale deed should be construed as the one relating to s. No. 82/2. Accordingly, he held that the mutation entry should be rectified so as to remove the mistake. Hence, he dismissed the appeal.

( 6 ) THE learned single judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that ifthe appellant/petitioner is aggrieved, it is open to him to file a suit.

( 7 ) IN the normal course the opinion rendered by the learned single judge holdsgood and there cannot be any two opinions in view of a division bench decision of this court in Sri manmaharaja niranjana jagadguru mallikarjuna murugarajendra mahaswami matadipathy v deputy commissioner, coorg, 1986 (1) Kar. L. j. 373 : ILR 1986 (2) Kar. 1059 and also in payappa nemanna haded v chamu appayya ended and others, 1969 mys. L. j. 198. But, this is a case in which the tahsildar and the assistant commissioner have tried to usurp the jurisdiction of a civil court and determine that the land that has been sold under the sale deed is s. No. 82/2 and not 82/1. Thus they have tried to go behind the apparent tenor of the sale deed and find out as to whether it was s. No. 82/1 or s. No. 82/2 that was sold under the sale deed consequently resulting in deciding the question of title of the parties to a particular land. The authorities exercising the jurisdiction under chapter xi of the act have no jurisdiction to decide the title relating to an immovable property vide decision in rajasab husseinsab mulla v inayuthullakhan, 1990 (4) Kar. L. j. 496 : ILR 1992 (2) Kar. 1649. If really there is a mistake in mentioning the survey number in the sale deed, it is open to either of the parties to seek rectification of the sale deed under section 26 of the specific relief act or to have the title to the land declared by the court. But, it is not open to the revenue authorities to go into that matter and determine that the land that has been sold under the sale deed in comprised in s. No. 82/2 and not s





Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top