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

1995 Supreme(Kar) 68

Karnataka High Court
HANUMAPPA SAWKAR - Appellant
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER - Respondent
Decided On : 02-02-95
W.P. : 2881 of 1995

Advocates:
F.V.PATIL, H.H.Kaladagi

The main legal point established is that the application for mutation must be made within the specified time frame and presented to the designated authority as per the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

Headnote:

Mutation - Karnataka Land Revenue Act - Section 128

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought mutation under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act as a legal heir of his deceased wife. The respondent refused to accept the application citing a circular requiring such applications to be made through the Tahsildar.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the application for mutation was not made within the specified time frame and should have been presented to the Tahsildar as per the Act. The court held that the prescribed authority did not commit any error in refusing the application and that the petitioner had no right to claim a writ of mandamus.

Issues: The issues involved the refusal to accept the mutation application, the requirement to present the application to the Tahsildar, and the petitioner's claim for a writ of mandamus.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, which specified the time frame and procedure for reporting acquisition of rights. The court emphasized the requirement to follow the law and the absence of a legal right for the petitioner to claim a writ of mandamus.

Final Decision: The petition was deemed devoid of merit and rejected. The court directed the petitioner to make the report before the Tahsildar as per the law.

H. N. TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned government Advocate. The petitioner's grievance is that, on the death of his wife namely, Smt. Shantawa moved an application for mutation under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') as he has been one of the legal heirs of Smt. Shantawa. The petitioner's case is that, the village Accountant is the prescribed authority for the purpose of receiving the information in oral or in writing in the matters of succession and like. The petitioner's case is that, such application was moved by the petitioner in writing but the respondent No. 3 has passed an order dated 7-11-94 in Annexure E to the writ petition and by that order it was observed that, in view of the circular issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 the prescribed authority cannot receive those applications and that application should be moved through Tahsildar and thereby he has refused to accept the application. The petitioner has filed this petition with the prayer that the order dated 7-11-94 be quashed and a direction in the nature of mandamus be issued to the third respondent to accept the intimation of acquisition of rights by succession, survivorship, inheritance or by transfer etc. , keeping in view the provisions of Section 128 of the karnataka Land Revenue Act, (hereinafter referred to as 'the act' ). The petitioner's contention is that, the order impugned is contrary to the mandate of law as contained in Sections 128 and 129 of the Act and that the respondent No. 3 has acted illegally by refusing to accept that application. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, there is no provision under which such direction can be issued as has been mentioned in Annexure E which is of contrary to provisions of Section 128 of the Act. The learned Government Advocate submitted that, as a matter of administrative convenience the circular has been issued and there is no provision under which such circular has been issued by the prescribed authority and that no application has been moved to the Tahsildar.

( 2 ) I have applied my mind to the contention of the learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the circular issued by the Tahsildar dated 26-12-1991. Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act reads as under : "128. Acquisition of Rights to be Reported. (1) any person acquiring by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, any right as holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant of the land or assignee of the rent or revenue thereof, shall 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 the said officer shall at once give a written acknowledgment of the receipt of the report to the person making it; provided that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person having charge of his property shall make the report to the prescribed officer ; provided further that any person acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document shall be exempted from the obligation to report to the prescribed officer. Explanation I. The rights mentioned above include a mortgage without possession but do not include an easement or a charge not amounting to mortgage of the kind specified in Section 100 of the Transfer of Property act, 1882 (Central Act No. 4 of 1882 ). Explanation II. A person in whose favour a mortgage is discharged or extinguished or a lease determined acquires a right within the meaning of this section. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), the State Government may, by notification, appoint any Revenue Officer to whom a report under sub-section (1) may be made, in which case such officer shall give a written acknowledgment of the receipt of such report to the p





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
whatsapp-icon Back to top