The main legal point established is that the procedure prescribed by Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 applies to mutation entries based on a decree of the Civil Court, and procedural errors in passing mutation orders necessitate remitting the matter back to the original authority for a fresh order.

TIRATH S. THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner appears to have filed a suit for declaration against one Smt. Nagamma from whom he claims to have purchased the land in dispute. This suit was compromised and a compromise decree passed by the learned Munsiff and J. M. F. C. , pavagada by his order dated 20-1-1994. The petitioner thereafter approached the Tahsildar for making entries in the record of rights which prayer of the petitioner was allowed by the tahsildar by an order dated 16-3-1994 entering the petitioner's name as owner in occupation of Survey No. 61/2 of Madde village, Nidagal Hobli, Pavagada Taluk.

( 2 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order and mutation entry, the 3rd respondent herein preferred an appeal before the Assistant commissioner, Madhugiri in RRF (A) No. 16 of 1994-95. In the said appeal it was contended that the Tahsildar had not followed the procedure prescribed by Section 128 of the Karnataka Land revenue Act, 1964, while passing the order of mutation in favour of the petitioner. This argument found favour with the Assistant commissioner who by his order dated 22-5-1995 set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar and allowed the appeal.

( 3 ) AGGRIEVED, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the appellate order of the Assistant Commissioner.

( 4 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who argued that the procedure prescribed by Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 was inapplicable to cases where mutations were entered on the basis of a decree of the Civil Court. It was urged that since the Revenue Officer has no option but to attest a mutation on the basis of a decree passed by the competent Civil Court, in accordance with the procedure prescribed by Section 129, it would be an exercise in futility to issue a notice or consider the objections of any party interested in filing the same. I am not impressed by this submission of the learned Counsel. There is nothing in Sections 128 or 129 of the act to suggest that the procedure prescribed by the same has no application to cases in which the mutation entries are claimed on the basis of a decree passed by a Civil Court. On the contrary, section 128 specifically provides that any person acquiring any right in immovable property by any one of the modes specified in the said section or otherwise shall report to the officer concerned either orally or in writing the acquisition of any such right. The term 'otherwise' appearing in Section 128 would bring within its fold a case where the person claims title not on the basis of one of the modes specifically mentioned in the said provision but on the basis of a decree passed in his favour by the Civil Court. Section 129 of the Act prescribes the procedure which the officer receiving the report under Section 128 has to follow does not either expressly or by necessary implication exclude the mutations claimed on the basis of a decree of a Civil Court from the rigors of the said procedure. Understandably so, because a decree may be passed with or without contest. It may be an ex parte decree, or a decree based on the consent of the defendant, even when the defendant has no right to the property in question or has only a limited right. In all such cases adherence to the procedure prescribed by Section 129 would serve the purpose of finding out whether the interests of any third party in the property in question is being adversely affected. Determination of the rights of the third parties or the effect upon such rights by the decree passed by the Court would be impossible unless the provisions of Sections 128 and 129 are read harmoniously to mean that a third party would be entitled to a notice before a mutation is entered in favour of the decree-holder. That apart, the very fact that a party to the proceedings or one who is likely to be affected can have no possible defence to the proposed action is no reason for the authority concerned to dispense with a notice to such a part

Click Here to Read the rest of this document