Back
2015 Supreme(Kar) 1145
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
Nagaraja – Appellant
Vs.
The Deputy Commissioner and Ors. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5054/2015 (KLR-RR/SUR)
Decided On : 26-09-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :N.S. Bhat, Advocate
For the Respondents: H. Venkatesh Dodderi, AGA
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of following legal procedures, jurisdiction, and competence in adjudicating land disputes under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Headnote:
Land Dispute - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Section 136(2), Section 128, Section 135 - The court discussed the legal provisions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, particularly focusing on the procedure for mutation entries, jurisdiction of revenue officers, and the requirement to approach the civil court for declaratory reliefs. The court emphasized the responsibility of revenue officers in discharging their statutory obligations to avoid unnecessary litigation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner claimed to have purchased land, and the respondents sought mutation entries based on a sale deed from 1965. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the mutation entries, which the petitioner challenged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents' claim as legal representatives was not maintainable, and the Deputy Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate civil rights without a trial.
Issues: The issues revolved around the maintainability of the respondents' claim, the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner, and the requirement for declaratory reliefs from the civil court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents' claim and the Deputy Commissioner's decision were not in accordance with the legal procedures and lacked jurisdiction and competence.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the Deputy Commissioner's order was set aside, and the revenue petition was rejected. The court directed the parties not to create third-party interest in the property until the conclusion of the civil dispute.
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.
1. Petitioner claims to be purchaser of land measuring 1 acre in Sy. No. 15/4P2 of Malalur village, Amble Hobli, Chikmagalur Taluk and District, under a sale deed registered as document No. 277/1997-98 dated 26.4.1997 from H.C. Rame Gowda, for a valuable consideration, whereafter, the prescribed authority recorded the name of the petitioner in the mutation register at No. 8/1997-98. It is the allegation of the petitioner that one Siddaramegowda, the husband of respondent No. 5 and father of respondents-6 and 7 informed, the Tahsildar respondent No. 3 about acquisition of right, title and interest by his father Gange Gowda under a registered sale deed dated 21.8.1965 executed by one Channe Gowda. The Tahsildar, by order dated 4.12.2002, rejected the application, when the 4th respondent Siddamma, w/o Gange Gowda along with Siddarame Gowda, preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'Act') before the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No. 2. That Siddarame Gowda, is said to have died on 3.2.2011 and his legal representatives were not brought on record in the appeal. Hence, the Assistant Commissioner held that the appeal abates by order dated 21.5.2011, following which, respondents-4 to 7, claiming as legal representatives of Siddarame Gowda along with siddamma preferred revision petition 60/2011-2012 before the Deputy Commissioner which, by order dated 23.12.2014, was allowed, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar were set aside with a direction to the Tahsildar, the 3rd respondent, to effect mutation entries in the name of respondents-5 to 7 on the basis of the sale deed dated 21.8.1965. Hence this petition.
2. Petition deserves to be allowed for the following two reasons. In the first place, respondents-5 to 7 claim to be legal representatives of one Siddarame Gowda, who is reported to have died during pendency of appeal No. 30/2010-11 on the file of Assistant Commissioner and by order dated 21.05.2011 the appeal abated, since legal representatives were not brought on record, although 4th respondent Siddamma was the first appellant and Siddarame Gowda was the 2nd appellant. The 4th respondent along with legal representatives of Siddarame Gowda, i.e. respondents-5 to 7, herein, jointly preferred revision petition invoking sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the 'Act' although such petition was not available since the legal representatives were required to file application in the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner to have the order dated 21.5.2011 recalled by setting aside the abatement. That procedure when not followed, the revision petition, before the Deputy Commissioner was not maintainable.
3. Secondly, the Deputy Commissioner without authority or competence to adjudicate over the civil rights of the parties, relating to right, title and interest in the immovable property in question, conducted an adjudication, without a trial. Since there was no jurisdiction or competence to record the evidence of the parties as held by the Full Bench Decision of this court in C.N. Nagendra Singh v. The Special Deputy Commission, Bangalore District and others, ILR 2002 Kar. 2750, which when not noticed by the Deputy Commissioner, opined that respondents-4 to 7, had right, title and interest and their names ought to be recorded in the mutation register and accordingly directed so, by the order impugned.
4. There is no dispute that petitioner instituted O.S.271/2014, arraigning respondents-4 to 7 as party defendants seeking injunctory reliefs in respect of the immovable property in question and is pending on the file of Civil Judge, Jr.Dn. Chikmagalur. If that is so and regard being had to the proviso to Section 135 of the Act, by which, parties would have to approach civil court for declaratory reliefs, whence the judgment and decree will be binding on the revenue officers who are required to accordingly, amend the entries in the revenue register
