ORAL ORDER

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 to

4.

The captioned petition is filed assailing the order passed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-Q, wherein the order passed by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner is set aside. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order passed by the revisional court under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 4 and learned counsel for respondent No.5.

3. On reviewing the records, it is noticed that one Chowdappa s/o Hiriyanna was admittedly the owner of agricultural land bearing Sy.No.86/1 measuring 1 acre 13 guntas, situated at Singahalli village, Jala hobli, Devanahalli taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The petitioners have challenged the mutation on the premises that the wife of original owner Chowdappa had no saleable right and that during the lifetime of Chowdappa, one Narayanappa created a sale deed dated 23.02.1967, who inturn sold the petition land to Krishnappa under a registered sale deed dated 02.11.1972. The said Krishnappa is the paternal uncle of respondent No.5. This Court has also taken note of the fact that the petitioners assailing these alienations have filed a suit for declaration and possession and the same is pending consideration in O.S.No.214/2020, which is evidenced at Annexure-R. In the said suit, the petitioners, who are plaintiffs, have sought a declaration to declare them as absolute owners and declare the sale deed dated 23.02.1967 in favour of one Narayanappa and the consequent registered sale deed executed by Narayanappa in favour of Krishnappa on

02.11.1972 as null and void.

4. It would be useful for this Court to cull out the prayer sought in the declaratory suit filed by the petitioners, which reads as under:

"Wherefore, the plaintiff prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to pass a Judgment and decree as follows:

1). To declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property

2). To direct the defendants No.2 and 3 tq deliver the vacant physical possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff.

3). Sale deed dated 23.02.1967 гregistered as Document No.3930/1966-67, in the office of the Sub Registrar/ Devanahalli executed by late Sonnamma in favour of defendant No.1 is null and void.

4). Sale deed dated 02.11.1972 registered as Document No.2555/1972-73, in the office of Sub Registrar, Devanahalli executed by Defendant No.1 in favour of defendant No.2 is null and void.

5). To grant the costs of the suit and

6). To grant such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case together with cost, in the interest of justice and equity."

5. The petitioners claim that Sonnamma had no saleable title in 1967 since Chowdappa was alive. These disputed questions of facts cannot be examined in mutation proceedings. This Court has consistently held that the disputed question of fact and title cannot be adjudicated in mutation proceedings and revenue authorities lack competency to adjudicate the rights and titles of the parties. Respondent No.5's uncle's name was mutated in 1972 pursuant to a sale deed executed by the first purchaser, namely, Narayanappa. If respondent No.5's uncle's name was mutated way back in 1972 and the same is continued in RTC, the petitioners having filed a suit seeking relief of declaration and possession cannot seek adjudication at the hands of revenue authorities. The entries are made by taking cognizance of a registered sale deed. The mutation effected in the name of transferee taking cognizance of alienation made by Sonnamma in favour of Narayanappa and Narayanappa in favour of Krishnappa clearly adheres to the procedure contemplated under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. However, these entries will be subject to the outcome of the pending suit. Unless the sale deeds are set aside by the competent civil court, the peti