R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

Learned Additional Government Advocate takes

notice for respondents No.5 to 9. Learned counsel Sri

K.L.Sreenivas has entered appearance for respondents

No.1 to 4 by filing a caveat petition.

The petitioners are aggrieved by the impugned

order dated 22.04.2022 passed by the respondent -

Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District in No.RP 41/2021

at Annexure-F.

The petitioners herein earlier approached the

Assistant Commissioner, Mandya Sub-division, by filing an

appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land

- 6 -

Revenue Act, 1964 in RS No.275/2019, questioning the

mutation entry made in MR No.152/1998-99. It was

contended by the petitioners that 1 acre of land in

Sy.No.75/2C situated at Banasamudra Village, Kasaba

Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, Mandya District was purchased by

Sri Thimme Gowda under a registered sale deed dated

15.04.1982. After the demise of Sri Thimme Gowda, the

name of Sri Mayi Gowda S/o Thimme Gowda was entered

in the land records and continued to stand in the land

records till 1998-99 i.e., when the mutation entry in MR

No.152/98-99 was passed by the Tahsildar. Petitioner

No.1 is the widow of Sri Mayi Gowda and other petitioners

are children of Sri Mayi Gowda.

Learned counsel Sri H.C.Shivaramu appearing

for the petitioners would submit that Sri Ramakrishne

Gowda, brother of Sri Mayi Gowda got his name entered in

the land records in terms of the impugned MR No.152/98-

99, on the strength of a so called panchayat parikath,

- 7 -

which was an unregistered document. This was sought to

be questioned before the Assistant Commissioner. The

Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal filed by the

petitioner and directed the restoration of the katha as it

stood earlier to the mutation entry made in MR

No.158/98-99.

Being

aggrieved,

the

contesting

respondents herein who claimed under Sri Ramakrishne

Gowda approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing a

revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the Deputy Commissioner erred in holding that the

mutation entry in terms of MR No.152/98-99 was based on

a panchayat parikath along with the consent of the

parties. It is contended that the petitioners had not given

their consent and therefore, it was wrong on the part of

the Deputy Commissioner to have held the mutation entry

though based on an unregistered instrument, was made in

terms of the consent given by the other parties including

- 8 -

the petitioners herein. Learned counsel submits that when

admittedly the panchayat parikath is an unregistered

document and could not have been acted upon, the

original

order

passed

by

the

Tahsildar

based

an

unregistered document is illegal and contrary to the

provisions of law.

Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting

respondents would submit that the Deputy Commissioner

has rightly noticed the fact that while making the mutation

entry in terms of MR No.152/98-99, care was taken by the

revenue authorities to enter the name of the respective

share holders in terms of the partition and the names of

each of the share holders were mutated in respect of the

respective shares allotted to them. Therefore, it is

contended that the Deputy Commissioner rightly held that

the mutation entry made way back in the year 1998-99

could not have been questioned by the petitioners herein

after long lapse of more than 21 years. The Deputy

- 9 -

Commissioner has therefore rightly allowed the revision

petition while setting aside the order of the Assistant

Commissioner.

On

hearing

the

learned

counsel

for

the

petitioners, contesting respondents, the learned Additional

Government Advocate on behalf of the respondent-

revenue authorities and on perusing the petition papers,

this Court finds that although in normal circumstances it

would be impermissible for the revenue authorities to act

upon an unregistered partition deed, nevertheless it is also

permissible in law when consent is given by the other

int