ORAL ORDER

Captioned petition is filed assailing the orders passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-B and confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-A.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

Subject matter of this petition is an agricultural land bearing Survey No.109/1 totally measuring 7 acre 5 guntas. The petitioner herein is asserting title to an extent of 3 acres out of total extent measuring 7 acres 5 guntas. Petitioner contends that father of respondent No. 6 and husband of respondent No. 7 namely Chandrappa was the owner of only 1 acres 5 guntas in Survey No.109/1.

Petitioner alleges that the family member of respondents 6 and 7 in collusion with the revenue officials based on illegal mutation under MR.No.67/95-96 has got the extent enhanced from 1 acre 5 guntas to 2 acres.

3. On an appeal by the petitioner herein, respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner referring to the mutations has found that no documents are furnished by either parties. The Assistant Commissioner has also referred to the sale deeds secured by the parties. Assistant Commissioner having noticed that Chandrappa's name was mutated way back in 1995-96 under MR.No.67/95-96 was not inclined to grant any indulgence.

Consequently, appeal was dismissed.

4. Upon a detailed examination of the records, it becomes apparent that the petition in question is liable to be dismissed on two significant grounds. Firstly, the petitioner has failed to present any title documents that substantiate his claim of ownership over an area of 3 acres in Survey No. 109/1. While the petitioner has contested the mutation order favoring the private respondents under Mutation Register No. 67/95-96, he has not provided any tangible proof to demonstrate his legal right or title to the land in question. The only attempt made by the petitioner in this regard was a vague reference to a family partition, but notably, the document related to this partition was never submitted to support his claim. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner was justified in refusing to entertain the petitioner's request for indulgence. The absence of any credible title document or legal evidence regarding the petitioner's ownership has left the Deputy Commissioner with no choice but to dismiss the revision petition.

5. Secondly, and importantly, this Court has consistently upheld the principle that the role of Revenue authorities under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is clearly delineated and limited. As reiterated in numerous judgments, the revenue authorities lack the jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes concerning the title of immovable property. Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act stipulates that any partition of land must be carried out in strict accordance with the registered documents. In cases where a party claims to have acquired rights to property, the revenue authorities are obligated to act solely based on the registered documents and to make necessary changes reflecting the transfer of title as per the registered record. In the present case, the petitioner claims to have acquired ownership of 3 acres through a family partition, but no valid document specifically the partition deed has been provided to substantiate this claim. The Deputy Commissioner, therefore, correctly concluded that the petitioner should not be granted any relief in the mutation proceedings without submitting the relevant documents. Since the petitioner’s assertion of title remains unsupported by any registered document, the proper course of action is for him to approach the competent civil court to prove his title over the 3 acres of land, as opposed to relying on the mutation proceedings for resolution of title disputes. The revenue authorities, under the prevailing legal framework, are not empowered to adjudicate on the merits of title claims; their role is confined to executing changes based on the documentary evidence provided. The Deputy Commissioner’s decision to direct the petiti