In pursuance of an oral partition, which was reduced into

writing, the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue

records as the owner of the subject land. The mutation entry is

dated 25.10.2000. The first respondent, who is the brother of

the petitioner, challenged the mutation entry in favour of the

petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 136(2) of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 8the Act9), before

the fourth respondent-Assistant Commissioner. The fourth

respondent-Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal on

the ground that the appeal was filed after an inordinate delay

of 18 years. Thereafter, the first respondent filed revision

petition under Section 136(3) of the Act before the third

respondent. The third respondent allowed the revision petition

on the ground that the first respondent has disputed his

signature on the partition deed. Against the order of the third

respondent, the present petition is filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

the appeal filed by the first respondent after an inordinate

delay of more than 18 years, without offering any plausible

- 4 -

explanation, was not maintainable and as such, the third

respondent ought to have dismissed the appeal only on the

ground that it was barred by limitation. He further submits that

the third respondent has exceeded in his jurisdiction in allowing

the revision petition on the ground that the first respondent has

disputed his signature on the partition deed and also on the

ground that the partition deed is not registered as specified

under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908.

I have examined the submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the document at Annexure-B, the

partition deed dated 28.09.2000, indicates that there was a

oral partition between the petitioner and the first respondent

and other members of the family and the same was reduced

into writing, and under the said partition deed, the petitioner

has been allotted the subject land. The case of the first

respondent is that he is not a signatory to the said partition

deed and the Tahsildar concerned, without following the

procedure contemplated under Section 129 of the Act, has

mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.

- 5 -

The question, whether the first respondent was

signatory to the partition deed or not, is a matter which

requires to be adjudicated by the jurisdiction civil Court.

Though the mutation entry was effected in favour of the

petitioner without following the procedure contemplated under

Section 129 of the Act, the fact remains that the mutation entry

has been challenged after an inordinate delay of 18 years,

which has got a presumptive value with regard to possession,

and rebuttal of the said presumption, which requires adducing

of evidence both oral and documentary, cannot be decided in a

summary proceedings under Section 136(2) and 136(3) of the

Act.

In view of the above, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 21.10.2021 passed by the

third respondent at Annexure-H is hereby quashed and

the mutation entry bearing M.E.No.2/2000-2001 dated

25.10.2000 in respect of the subject land stands

restored.

- 6 -

iii) Liberty is reserved with the first respondent to agitate

his rights before the jurisdictional civil Court.

iv) All contentions are kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KMS