Claims based on unregistered partition deeds must be resolved in civil court, as revenue authorities cannot adjudicate disputed claims.

DTD 08.02.2024 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN R.P.NO.99/2023 (ANNX-A) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL): Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondents No.1 to 3. Learned Counsel Sri.S.D.N., Prasad has entered appearance for respondents No.4 to 6.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order dated 08.02.2024 at Annexure-A passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District in R.P.No.99/2023.

3. It is the contention of the petitioners that the eldest son of Sri.Venkatashamappa namely Sri.V.Govindappa @ Govindaraju was granted 3.00 acres of land in Sy.No.214 New Sy.No.214/P30 of Budigere village, Channarayapatna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District, in the year 1994. Saguvali Chit was also issued in favour of Sri.V.Govindappa in the year

1996. It is contended that during the lifetime of Sri.V.Govindappa, there was a family arrangement in terms of the Panchayath Parikath, which was written on 01.02.1997 and it was agreed that the three sons of Sri.Venkatashamappa viz.,

V.Govindappa, Ramakrishnappa and Venkataranamappa are entitled for 1.00 acre each. However, the mutation entries were not carried out since there was a non-alienation condition imposed in the grant for a period of 15 years. It is submitted that Sri.V.Govindappa died on 22.06.2010. Thereafter, the wife and children of Sri.V.Govindappa, who are the private respondents herein approached the Revenue Authorities and got their names mutated in the revenue records on the strength of inheritance and in terms of mutation order M.R.H.100/2011-12.

4. The petitioners herein are brothers of Sri.V.Govindappa. They have challenged the mutation entries made in favour of the private respondents by filing an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 , before the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapura Sub-Division. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal while setting aside the mutation entries in M.R.H.No.100/2011-12 and directed the respondent- Tahsildar to enter the names of the petitioners herein in respect of 1.00 acre each while retaining 1.00 acre in favour of the legal heirs of Sri.V.Govindappa. The private respondents herein filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner while directing the petitioners to approach a competent civil court to get a declaration of title.

5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that the reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner is sound. When admittedly, the petitioners claim is based on an unregistered partition deed, the Revenue Authorities will have no power to accede to the demands made by the petitioners, since such a demand when objected, becomes disputed. The Deputy Commissioner is therefore right in his opinion that the petitioners will have to seek a declaration at the hands of a competent civil court.

6. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Devanahalli Taluk shall not restore or revert entries for a period of four weeks from today to enable the petitioners to approach the competent civil court and obtain interim directions against the private respondents not to alienate the property in question till disposal of the suit.

Ordered accordingly.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of four weeks from today.