The court affirmed that rectifying discrepancies in land sale documents must be pursued through civil court, not administrative authorities, maintaining that revenue authorities lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate property rights.

ORDER :

E.S.INDIRESH, J.

These writ petitions are filed by petitioners challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru in RA.No.309/2015, RA.No.310/2015 and RA.No.73/2018, confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru in RP.No.59/2021, RP.No.58/2021 and RP.No.57/2021 dated 20.04.2022 respectively, rejecting the claim made by petitioners and directed petitioners herein to approach the Civil Court for resolution of dispute with regard to the subject land.

2. The brief facts in nutshell for the purpose of adjudication that, petitioners have averred in the writ petitions that, one Sri. Bomme Gowda and late Sri. Rajappa (father of petitioners) have purchased the land in question from one Sri. Govinde Gowda as per the registered Sale Deed dated 16.02.1972 (Annexure-A). Sri. Rache Gowda has purchased the property as per the registered Sale Deed dated 20.03.1972 from Sri. Govinde Gowda insofar as 16½ guntas is concerned in the scheduled property as per Annexure-B. It is also stated that, the brother of Sri. Govinde Gowda - Sri. Puttaswamy has executed a Released Deed dated 28.06.1972 (Annexure-C) in favour of his brother Sri. Puttaswamy. It is stated in the writ petitions that the survey number mentioned in the Sale Deeds have been mistakenly stated as Sy.No.268/4 instead of Sy.No. 268/1. It is also stated in the writ petitions that, the private respondents herein (Branch of Sri. Govinde Gowda) have filed O.S.No.307/1987 against Sri. Bomme Gowda, Sri. Rajappa and Sri. Rache Gowda, before the Civil Court seeking relief of injunction, which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court on 27.09.1994 and thereafter, the said judgment and decree was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in RA No.131/1995 and thereafter, the judgment and decree confirmed by this Court in RSA No.2050/2005 dated 23.03.2006 (Annexure-F).

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that, since there is a mistake in the survey number mentioned in the Sale Deed that would not come in the way of respondents-Authorities to make Khata in favour of petitioners by rectifying the survey number, since the boundaries remain as it is and discrepancy is with regard to the survey number is concerned and therefore, petitioners herein have presented these writ petitions challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysuru and the Deputy Commissioner, Mysuru.

4. Heard Sri. Y.K.Narayana Sharma, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. Manjunath K., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents.

5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for petitioners, by referring to the order passed by this Court in RSA No.2050/2005 (Annexure-F) at paragraph No.9, that, an observation has been made by this Court by rejecting the appeal preferred by the private-respondents herein that they have made a mistake in mentioning the schedule in the registered Sale Deed and in that view of the matter, the private-respondents have to be relegated to establish their right in respect of the subject land is concerned and as such, he submitted that the findings recorded by both respondents- Authorities requires to be set aside in these writ petitions.

6. It is also argued by Sri. V.K. Narayana Sharma, learned counsel appearing for petitioners by referring to the findings recorded by respondents-Authorities that, there is no impediment for respondents-Authorities to rectify the survey number since the various Sale Deeds are being made by the erstwhile owner - Sri. Govinde Gowda in favour of the private respondents herein and hence, it is contended that, the findings recorded by respondents-Authorit