The court upheld the finality of previous judgments relating to property mutation, requiring legal evidence to contest existing entries, thereby dismissing the appellants’ claims.

JUDGMENT :

K. S. HEMALEKHA, J.

This intra Court appeal arises out of the dismissal of W.P.No.201905/2023 dated 30.08.2023 by the learned Single Judge, wherein the challenge to the order dated 22.06.2023 of the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar preferred by the appellants herein was affirmed whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar had set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 16.01.2023, which had set aside the Mutation Order No.27/1998-99 and Mutation No.3/2013-14.

2. The genealogy of the parties is culled out here for ready reference :

3. Gundappa, the original propositus was survived by his wife Kallamma and two daughters namely, Saraswati and Bhagirathibai. Saraswati had six children and Bhagirathibai who was married to one Manikappa died issueless. The brother of Manikappa is one Subhash who is respondent No.3 in the present proceedings. The land bearing Sy. No.45/A, measuring 02 acres 27 guntas of Mailoor village, Tq. & Dist. Bidar (hereinafter referred to as ‘subject property’ for short) was originally in the joint name of Bhagirathibai and Manikappa under the Mutation Order No.27/1998-99. After the demise of Bhagirathibai, through Mutation Order No.3/2013-14, subject property was mutated in the name of respondent No.3. The appellants are the daughters of Saraswati, sister of Bhagirathibai.

4. The case of the appellants is that, respondent No.3 illegally and fraudulently got his name mutated in the revenue records of the subject property without any legal right, title or interest and behind the back of the appellants who are the legal heirs of the original propositus Gundappa through their mother Saraswati.

5. The brothers of the appellants (respondent Nos.4 to 6) had earlier filed O.S.No.59/2016 seeking declaration of title and injunction in respect of the subject property, the said suit came to be dismissed on 16.09.2020 and the dismissal of suit was confirmed in R.A.No.67/2020 by judgment dated 08.11.2022. The Assistant Commissioner, Bidar upon allowing the appeal filed by the appellants held that the Mutation Entry No.27/1998-99 dated 09.03.1998 and Mutation No.03/2013-14 dated 31.10.2013 in respect of the subject property were liable to be set aside. The Assistant Commissioner observed that none of the parties had obtained any declaratory decree from Civil Court or produced any legal heir certificate substantiating their title over the subject property. It was further held that, in respect of the subject property, the parties have already approached the Civil Court and litigation regarding their respective rights is presently pending adjudication. The Assistant Commissioner directed that the entries in the revenue of records relating to the subject property be restored to the status prior to the impugned mutations, until the disposal of pending civil suit and the Thasildar, Bidar was directed to implement this restoration and submit compliance report.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, Bidar, respondent No.3 preferred revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision, setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and observed that civil suit in O.S. No.59/2016 filed by brothers of the appellants (respondent Nos.4 to 6) seeking declaration of title, had already been dismissed and the same has been confirmed in R.A.No.67/2020. Relying upon the finality of the Civil Court’s finding, the Deputy Commissioner held that there was no basis for setting aside the mutation entries and accordingly reversed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The appellants challen