Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Hemant Chandangoudar, J.
B. RAMAIAH – Appellant
Vs.
B. NAYANAPPA – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 5386 of 2007
Decided On : 01-12-2021
Gift Deed - Mutation of Land - The court held that the mutation of the petitioner's name in the revenue records was justified based on the registered gift deed executed by his mother. The court emphasized that the Tahsildar rightly mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, and the Deputy Commissioner's challenge to the validity of the gift deed was not within the scope of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue records based on a registered gift deed executed by his mother. The 1st respondent challenged this mutation and filed a suit seeking declaration of title, which was dismissed by the Civil Court. The 1st respondent then filed an appeal and a revision petition, leading to the impugned order by the 6th respondent directing joint mutation of names.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the mutation of the petitioner's name based on the registered gift deed was justified, and the Deputy Commissioner's challenge to the validity of the gift deed was not sustainable in law. As a result, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order, directing the restoration of the petitioner's name in the revenue records.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the mutation of the petitioner's name in the revenue records based on the registered gift deed, the challenge to the gift deed's validity, and the scope of the Deputy Commissioner's authority under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the justification of the mutation of the petitioner's name in the revenue records due to the registered gift deed, the absence of challenge to the gift deed's validity, and the Deputy Commissioner's lack of authority to question the validity of the gift deed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the 4th respondent was directed to restore the petitioner's name in the revenue records.
JUDGMENT :
Hemant Chandangoudar, J.
1. On the basis of the registered gift deed dtd. 18/1/1982 executed by the mother of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records in respect of land bearing Sy.No. 123A/1 measuring 6.20 acres situated at Korlagundi Village, Bellary Taluk. Thereafter, the 4th respondent - Tahasildar by order dtd. 17/4/2002 dismissed the dispute raised by the 1st respondent and directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to agitate their claim.
2. Pursuant to the order of the 4th respondent, the 1st respondent filed OS No. 181/2002 before the jurisdictional Civil Court seeking for declaration of title in respect of the land to an extent of 3.10 acres. The jurisdictional Civil Court after examining the revenue records dismissed the suit filed by the 1st respondent. Pursuant to the dismissal of the suit, the 1st respondent filed an appeal under Sec. 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the 5th respondent. The 5th respondent by order dtd. 6/5/2006 taking into account the dismissal of the suit filed by the 1st respondent and also the conduct of the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, the 1st respondent preferred a revision petition under Sec. 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The 6th respondent by order dated Nil February, 2007 allowed the appeal directing the Tahsildar to mutate the name of the petitioner and the 1st respondent jointly in the revenue records in respect of the land in question. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition is filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records in pursuance of the registered gift deed executed by his mother. Hence, he submits that in the absence of challenge to the said gift deed by the 1st respondent, the 6th respondent committed an error in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the judgment and decree dtd. 28/11/2019 passed in OS No. 244/2011 by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari wherein the claim of the 1st respondent for partition and separate possession of his share in the land in question is also dismissed.
4. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner and 1st respondent having not established absolute right over the land in question, the 6th respondent was justified in directing the Tahasildar to mutate the name of the petitioner and the 1st respondent jointly.
5. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records in respect of the land in question in pursuance of the registered gift deed executed by his mother. The 1st respondent has not challenged the validity of the gift deed before the competent Court of law and the gift deed is still in subsistence. Hence, the Tahsildar concerned having regard to the registered gift deed has rightly mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land in question by exercising the power under Sec. 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner ignoring this aspect has held that the registered gift deed could not have been executed in favour of the petitioner unilaterally. The Deputy Commissioner exercising the power under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot sit over the validity of the gift deed. Hence, the order passed by the 6th respondent is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER:
(ii) The impugned order dated Nil February, 2002 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary vide Annexure-G is hereby quashed.
(iii) The 4th respondent is hereby directed to restore the name of the petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land in question.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mutation of a petitioner's name in revenue records based on a registered gift deed is justified, and the authority under the Karnataka Lan....
The dismissal of suits filed by the respondents influenced the court's decision to quash the order staying the mutation entry in favor of the petitioner.
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
