A subsequent purchaser cannot claim a tenant's surrender of tenancy without establishing the validity of that surrender, as the burden lies with the landlord to substantiate such claims.

CAV ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

1. The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

i. Issuing a writ of certiorari and quash the order dated 27.10.2022 issued by the Respondent No.1 vide Annexure-“A” No.

L.R.M/BELAGAVI/S.R-172 &149 ii. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.

2. The facts in brief are;

2.1. The petitioners claim that the land bearing Survey No.79/2 measuring 05 acres 04 guntas, and Survey No.85/2, measuring 6 acres 20 guntas, both situated within the village limits of Benakanhalli Taluka, Belagavi District, were sold by Mr. Madhukar Omanna Muchandi through a registered sale deed dated 01.10.1965 to Madhan Bindurao Potdar - Respondent No.2 herein. Accordingly, his name was entered in the record of rights.

2.2. The petitioners entered into an agreement of sale dated 24.10.1994 with Respondent No.4, who was representing Respondent No.2 as a power of attorney holder. After receipt of the entire sale consideration of Rs.4,08,000/- in respect of Survey No.79/2 and Rs.5,24,000/- in respect of Survey No.85/2, a sale deed came to be executed on 31.12.2002 in favor of the petitioners by Respondent No.2 through his power of attorney, Respondent No.4.

2.3. Thereafter, the petitioners had been put in actual physical possession of the properties, and their names came to be mutated in the records of rights in respect of the aforesaid properties vide M.E.No.3600 and M.E.No.3601, respectively. The petitioners further claim that they have made payments of property taxes, electricity connections etc.

2.4. Respondent No.2 filed RTS Appeal No.52/2006 before the Assistant Commissioner, Belagavi, challenging the aforesaid mutation entries in M.E.No.3600 and M.E.No.3601, wherein Respondent No.2 contended that the power of attorney executed by Respondent No.2 in favor of Respondent No.4 had been cancelled, and a paper publication had been issued in the newspaper Kannadamma, and as such, no sale deed could be executed by Respondent No.4 on behalf of Respondent No.2, in favour of the petitioners. The petitioners claim that, on enquiry being made by petitioners with Respondent No.4, Respondent No.4 has denied any such cancellation.

2.5. The Assistant Commissioner, Belagavi, allowed the appeal by an order dated 05.01.2007 and cancelled the mutation entries.

2.6. The petitioners then preferred a Revision Petition No.423/2006-07 challenging the order in RTS Appeal No. 53/2006 and Revision Petition No.424/2006-07, challenging the order in RTS Appeal No.52/2006, before the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi. The Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, vide its order dated 13.07.2009, dismissed the revision petitions.

2.7. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed Writ Petition Nos.65365/2009 and 65366/2009, which came to be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the revenue authorities.

2.8. The petitioners have issued a public notice on 31.12.2002, informing the general public that the sale deed has been executed in favor of the petitioners. However, Respondent No.2 on 13.07.2011, executed a sale deed in respect of R.S.No.79/2 in favor of Respondent No.8, and another sale deed in respect of R.S.No.85/2 in favor of Respondent No.3.

2.9. The petitioners thereafter filed two suits, in O.S.No.27/2012, for declaration and perpetual injunction before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Belagavi.

2.10. Respondents No.5 to 7 had filed impleading applications in the said suit, which c