S. R. VENKATESHA MURTHY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ appeal is against the order in writ petition No. 41682 of 1993 dismissing the writ petition challenging the order of the assistant commissioner, belgaum sub-division, belgaum in r. t. s. appeal 65 of 1993, dated 5-11-1993.

( 2 ) THE writ petitioner is the son of a. g. kulkarni who purchased 5 guntas and 4 annas of land in survey No. 73/2/4 of anagol village, belgaum taluk under registered sale deed dated 25-5-1956. The petitioner claiming that his name has not been recorded in the r. t. c. , in respect of 5 guntas and 4 annas of land, made an application to the tahsildar, belgaum for necessary correction of the record of rights in terms of the sale deed dated 25-5-1956. The tahsildar gave notice to the third respondent herein who was the vendor and conducted a summary enquiry and found that the land claimed by the petitioner was in his possession and directed the entering of his name in respect of survey No. 73/2/4 of anagol village. Being aggrieved by the order of the tahsildar in rt. s. sr. 51 of 1992-93, dated 30-4-1993, the third respondent appealed to the assistant commissioner. Belgaum sub-division in r. t. s. appeal 65 of 1993 dated 5-11-1993. The assistant commissioner allowed the appeal on the ground that the tahsildar could not have effected the change on the ground that the request was made beyond twelve years and that the appellant was entitled to move the civil court. Being aggrieved by the order of the assistant commissioner, the appellant herein filed the writ petition as aforesaid and lost his claim. Hence, this appeal.

( 3 ) THE case of the writ petitioner before the tahsildar and in the writ petition was that his father a. g. kulkarni purchased the land measuring 5 guntas and 4 annas under a sale deed dated 25-5-1956 and thereafter the land was mutated in the name of his father as survey No. 73/2/4-a and since then, the r. t. c. , extracts are standing in petitioner's father's name and thereafter in his name. The third respondent, meanwhile, under a sale deed dated 5-11-1959 sold an extent of 7 guntas of land out of the balance of 7 guntas and 8 annas to one shankar ambaji sonavalkar. Thus, the third respondent had possession and title to only 8 annas of land in survey No. 73/2/4 of anagol village. Apparently, the petitioner sought correction of the r. t. c. extract to accord with the mutation in survey No. 73/2/4-a. After the sales referred to above, the authorities were obliged to make corresponding deductions in the r. t. c. extracts relating to survey No. 73/2/4. However, the same not having been done, the petitioner approached the tahsildar for the necessary correction and obtained the same. The assistant commissioner set it aside as aforesaid.

( 4 ) THE question is, whether the assistant commissioner could have rejected the claim of the petitioner for reasons stated by him?

( 5 ) BEFORE the tahsildar. The third respondent filed a written objection admitting the sale dated 9-11-1959* in favour of shankar ambaji sonavalkar in respect of 7 guntas of land under the sale deed dated 5-9-1959**. However, in respect of the sale deed under which the petitioner claimed, he sought to deny it though not specifically. The tahsildar conducted a summary enquiry in accordance with Section 129 of the Karnataka land revenue act and found that the property under the sale deed dated 25-5-1956 was in the possession of the petitioner in terms dated 25-5-1956 was in the possession of the petitioner in terms of the sale deed. At the stage of arguments, the third respondent appears to have denied the execution of the sale deed dated 25-5-1956 and asserted that he was in possession of the properties. It has to be noticed that the third respondent never sought to challenge the enquiry conducted by the tahsildar either before the assistant commissioner or in the writ petition or in this writ appeal as being violative of natural Justice or otherwise.

( 6 ) CHAPTER xi of the Karnataka

Click Here to Read the rest of this document