ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 14-07-2022 passed by the first respondent/Assistant Commissioner, Pandavapura Sub-Division, whereby the first respondent directs change of name of the petitioner in the RTC to that of the third respondent invoking the power conferred on him under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (‘the Act’ for short).

2. Heard Sri Sharath S. Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Kiran Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri B. Roopesha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3.

3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:-

The petitioner is the son of the third respondent. The petitioner is said to have acquired property measuring 3 acres 18 guntas in Sy.No.19/3C and another extent of 3 acres and 10 guntas in Sy.No.19/4C situated at Kotagahalli Village, Santhebhachalli Hobli, Krishnarajapete Taluk, Mandya District. The subject property was acquired on 24-03-2005 pursuant to a panchayat palupatti effected between the third respondent and his children. In terms of the said palupatti, mutation came to be effected in the name of the petitioner. The mutation entry in the name of the petitioner is appended to the petition. The relationship between the petitioner and the third respondent/father is said to have turned sore with regard to a dispute of certain coconut plantation and installing borewell in the land that formed the subject matter of such mutation.

4. The third respondent then initiates revenue proceedings invoking Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in R.Misc.No.79 of 2014-15 assailing mutation entries which stood in the name of the petitioner in respect of the subject property. The Assistant Commissioner allows the appeal, sets aside the mutation entry that stood in the name of the petitioner in terms of his order dated 17-09-2021. The petitioner then challenges the said order before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.6 of 2022. The Deputy Commissioner grants an interim order of stay of the said order of the Assistant Commissioner on

28-01-2022.

5. After the grant of stay, the third respondent invokes the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner under the Act. What was prayed before the Assistant Commissioner in a petition filed under Section 23 of the Act was to set aside mutation entry which stood in the name of the petitioner. Contrary to all the aforesaid pending proceedings, the Assistant Commissioner exercising his jurisdiction under the Act allows the petition, sets aside the mutation entry and directs change of entry from the name of the petitioner to the name of the third respondent. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the said action of the Assistant Commissioner who has set aside the mutation entry which stood in the name of the petitioner invoking his power under the Act.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Assistant Commissioner has examined palupatti of the year 2005 under the Act. While that could not have been examined by the Assistant Commissioner, even on merits has directed implementation of his order dated 17-09-2021 which has been stayed by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioner has used these collateral proceedings to get his order implemented which runs counter to plethora of judgments rendered by this Court and other Courts with regard to jurisdiction to touch upon a document of the year 2005 which has emanated prior to the coming into force of the Act. He would place reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. C.KAMALAMMA v. P.GOPAL AND OTHERS – Writ Appeal No.1170 of 2021 decided on 16th November, 2021.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the third respondent/applicant before the Assistant Commissioner would seek to refute the submissions by contending that after execution of palupatti the se