The court emphasized the importance of timely reporting of rights acquisition and the need for credible evidence in ownership disputes.

( 1 ) THE matter is taken up for hearing with the consent of learned Counsels for both the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent in RP No. 66 of 1998, dated 15- 11 -2000. The petitioner is claiming that she is the owner and in enjoyment of Sy. No. 17/7 measuring 35 guntas situated in Chandupura village, Maddur Taluk on the alleged palupatti said to have been executed by the 1st respondent and another his brother on 20-2-1985. She has filed an application for sanction of mutation before the Village Accountant on 10-2-1997 and contended that the said application has been duly signed by the 1st respondent and his another brother. In pursuance of the said application filed by the petitioner dated 10-2-1997, the Village accountant has issued notice to the concerned authorities and when he has not received any objections within 30 days from the date of filing of the application, the Village Accountant submitted his wardi on 15-3-1997. On the basis of the wardi submitted by the Village Accountant, the 2nd respondent has sanctioned the mutation and the name of the petitioner was entered in the RTC extract for the agricultural years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Further she has placed reliance on Annexure-D, an intimation/letter addressed to the petitioner on 30-12-2000 by the Society. When things thus stood, feeling aggrieved by the said mutation sanctioned in favour of the petitioner by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent herein has filed the revision petition before the 3rd respondent under Section 136 (3} of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Deputy commissioner has allowed the revision by his order dated 15-11-2000 cancelling the mutation sanctioned by the 2nd respondent in favour of the petitioner. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent-the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner has come up with this petition.

( 3 ) THE principal submission canvassed by the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule land since 1985 and the said land has fallen to the share of the petitioner on the basis of the Palupatti (oral partition) arrived at between the petitioner and the 1st respondent and another brother on 20-2-1985 to the extent of 35 guntas of land. The 1st respondent and another brother have given no objection to the application filed by the petitioner to the Village Accountant to sanction the mutation in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Village Accountant has rightly submitted wardi to the 2nd respondent for sanctioning the mutation and the 2nd respondent has also rightly sanctioned mutation as 1st respondent and another brother has given consent for sanction of the mutation in favour of the petitioner.

( 4 ) FURTHER the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner persuaded that the Village Accountant before submitting his wardi to the 2nd respondent has issued notice to the 1st respondent and his another brother but nobody has filed objection, particularly 1st respondent herein has not made any objection to that effect. Therefore, he contended that the 2nd respondent has rightly sanctioned the mutation in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of sanction of the said mutation, thereafter, the petitioner's name has been entered in the relevant RTC records. Further he has pointed out that the petitioner has grown sugarcane crop in the land in question and for that purpose she has raised loan from the Society and the Society in turn has issued Annexure-D to that effect to show that the petitioner has obtained the loan for growing sugarcane crop in the land in question. Even otherwise also, the Deputy commissioner had given a specific finding to the effect that before mutation was sanctioned in favour of the petitioner, notice was issued to the 1st respondent and the said notice was served on him and he had not filed