PASSED

BY

DEPUTY

COMMISSIONER,

BANGALORE IN REV. PTN. NO.100/2011-12 DATED 20.10.2012

VIDE ANNEXURE-M CONFERING THE ORDER OF ASSISTANT

COMMISSIONER,

BANGALORE

SOUTH

SUB

DIVISION,

BANGALORE DATED 21.6.2001 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING -

B GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

ORDER

Petitioners are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for

assailing

the

Deputy

Commissioner9s

order

dated

20.10.2012 made under Sections 136(3) at Annexure-M

which confirms the Assistant Commissioner9s order dated

21.06.2001 made u/s.136(2) of the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, 1964 at Annexure-J.

Learned counsel for

the petitioners argues that the entry in question could not

have been made inasmuch as the same is contrary to two

sale deeds, one dated 25.06.1958 at Annexure-K and the

other dated 22.01.1970 at Annexure-L. He also draws

attention of Court to the mutation of entries earlier made

on the basis of these two sale deeds.

4

2.

Learned

AGA

appearing

for

the

official

respondents and the learned private advocate appearing for

the

private

respondents,

oppose

the

Writ

Petition

contending that though the survey number is a bit wrongly

mentioned, the parties have understood each other9s lands

as the officials too have, going by it9s description land in the

subject sale deeds by specifying the boundaries and

therefore, no grievance of the kind can be made in this

petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the private

respondents notifies to the court about the pendency of

civil suit in O.S.No.712/2007 filed by his clients wherein

petitioners9 side happens to be defendants. They have

sought for declaration of title & injunction in respect of the

subject land and that the said suit has been long pending.

He also contends that, after all, the orders of Assistant

Commissioner & Deputy Commissioner shall be subject to

outcome of the said suit. So contending, they seek

dismissal of the Writ Petition.

5

4.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court declines

indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

(a)

The records disclose that the petitioners had sold

Sy.No.102 of the said village in favour of the predecessors

in title of the private respondents herein vide registered

sale deeds dated 25.06.1958 & 22.01.1970. The counsel for

the petitioners on being specifically asked tells the court

that the land in Sy.No.106 was allotted to his clients and he

is not in a position to say as to how his clients have derived

title to the land comprised in Sy.No.102. His explanation

that there is some material on record to show that these

two lands are different from each other, is bit difficult to

countenance. Regardless of arguable error in mentioning

the survey numbers in 1958 sale deed & in 1970 sale deed,

the description of the land with specifications of boundaries

removes all possible doubts that would otherwise arise by

virtue of wrong survey number. The Apex Court in the case

of SHUBAGA & OTHERS VS. SHUBHA & OTHERS, 2006 (5)

CTC 180, has held that in identifying the land, ordinarily,

6

the description with boundaries as given in the conveyance

should prevail over the survey numbers. This inarticulate

premise having animated the impugned orders, they are

not vulnerable for challenge.

(b)

Petitioners9

side

had

filed

case

in

K.SC.ST.25/2015-16 for voiding of two sale deeds executed

by them in favour of the vendors of the private respondents

herein and for restoration of the very same land u/s 4 of

the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The

same has been dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner

vide order dated 29.04.2016, a copy whereof is placed on

record by the learned counsel appearing for the said

respondents. As appeal against the same is also stated to

be pending. That being the position, the title of the private

respondents thus arguably has been kept intact un