Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU (DHARWAD BENCH)
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J.
Ayyamma - Appellant
Versus
Ningamma - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 105353 of 2019, 105754 of 2019, 105755 of 2019
Decided On : 21-07-2020
MUTATION - AGRICULTURAL LAND DISPUTE - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Section 128 - The court considered the dispute over mutation of names in revenue records for agricultural lands and the validity of registered sale deeds. The court held that mutations effected under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, based on registered sale deeds, cannot be disturbed unless set aside by a competent court. The court quashed the order directing mutation and restored the original order, stating that entries in revenue records would be subject to the result of the pending suit.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitions were filed seeking to quash an order directing mutation of names in revenue records for agricultural lands. The petitioners had acquired the lands through registered sale deeds, and mutations were effected in 1983. The respondents sought mutation based on a pending suit for partition and separate possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mutations based on registered sale deeds had attained finality and could not be disturbed unless set aside by a competent court. The court quashed the order directing mutation and restored the original order, stating that entries in revenue records would be subject to the result of the pending suit.
Issues: The main issues were whether the revenue authorities erred in directing mutation of names and whether the orders violated the mandatory provisions of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that mutations based on registered sale deeds cannot be disturbed unless set aside by a competent court. The court also found that the revenue authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction by directing mutation pending the outcome of a civil suit.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, and the order directing mutation was quashed. The original order was restored, and entries in revenue records were made subject to the result of the pending suit.
JUDGMENT
Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. - The captioned writ petitions are filed by the petitioners seeking writ in the nature of certiorari and quash the order bearing No.Kam/Apeelu/33/ 2016-17, K.No.22940, dated 03.01.2019 passed by the 7th respondent/Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-M.
2. The facts leading to the top noted writ petitions are as under:
The subject matter of the writ petitions are agricultures lands bearing Sy.No.12/A (12/A2) measuring 1 acre 20 guntas, Sy.No.12/C (12/C) measuring 4 acres 34 guntas and Sy.No.14 measuring 6 acres 34 guntas sitated at Ramapur village, Gangavathi Taluka, Koppal District. The said lands are renumbered as R.S.No.12/1C, R.S.No.12/2B, R.S.No.12/C and R.S.No.14.
3. It is not in dispute that all these petition lands were originally owned by one Basanagouda son of Ayyanagouda. The petitioners have averred in paragraph No.2 of the writ petitions that the said Basanagouda died in the year 1983 leaving behind him his wife Ayyamma, two sons namely Narayangouda and Ayyanagouda and two daughters namely Vijjamma @ Vi jayalaxmi and Hanamavva. The petitioners have contended that the original propositus Basanagouda sold an area measuring 2 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.12/3 (12C) and 1 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.12/A2 to petitioner No.7 namely Karilaxmi W/o Krishnareddi for sale consideration of Rs.36,000/- under registered sale deed dated 31.05.1978 and accordingly she was put in possession. Petitioner No.7 name was duly mutated to the revenue records pursuant to the sale deed executed by the Basanagouda.
4. At paragraph Nos.3 of the writ petitions, the petitioners have contended that, Basanagouda during his lifetime gave up his rights over an area measuring 2 acres 14 guntas out of Sy.No.12/3 in favour of his wife Ayyamma and accordingly her name was mutated to the revenue records. The wife of Basanagouda namely Ayyamma sold 2 acres 14 guntas of land in Sy.No.12/3 (12C) to petitioner No.8 through registered sale deed dated 11.05.1983 for sale consideration of Rs.25,000/-. Pursuant to sale deed, petitioner No.8's name was duly mutated to the revenue records under ME.No.31 dated 25.06.1983. Further Ayyamma sold an area measuring 1 acre 26 guntas in Sy.No.14 in favour of petitioner No.6 for sale consideration of Rs.19,000/- through registered sale deed dated 11.05.1983 and petitioner No.6 name was duly mutated to the revenue records of Sy.No.14 under M.E.No.30 dated 25.06.1983. The petitioners to substantiate their alienations have placed on record, the true copies of sale deeds and consequent mutations before this Court as per Annexures-B, C, D, E and F.
5. The case of the petitioners before this Court is, these mutations were effected way back in 1983, wherein the purchasers' names (petitioner Nos.6 to 8) came to be mutated and the same are not at all challenged till this date. The grievance of the petitioners is that it is only in 2012, respondent No.1 who has no semblance of right and title and who is no way related to deceased Basanagouda submitted an application to respondent Nos.5/Tahasildar seeking for entry of her name to the revenue record. The 5th respondent issued an endorsement on 06.12.2012 in RRT/8/2012-13, thereby declining to enter the name of respondent No.1. It appears, respondent No.1 preferred an appeal before the 6th respondent/Assistant Commissioner in Koppal/ RRT/Appeal 164/ 2012-13. The 6th respondent/ Assistant Commissioner by order dated 28.12.2012 allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the 5th respondent/ Tahasildar.
6. Petitioner Nos.1 and 6 to 8 being aggrieved by the order passed by the 6th respondent/Assistant Commissioner approached this Court questioning the remand order passed by the 6th respondent/Assistant Commissioner in W.P.Nos.76208-211/2013. This Court by order dated 26.03.2013 set aside the order dated 28.12.2012 passed by the 6th respondent/ Assistant Commissioner and directed the 1st respondent to implead all necessary parties in the appeal. In compliance
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
