The petitioner claims to have purchased the

property bearing Sy.No.193/66 measuring 5 cents and

193/59 measuring 5 cents, totally measuring 10 cents

situated at T.Shettigeri Village, Virajpet Taluk, by

virtue of a registered sale deed dated 06.05.2013.

Petitioner further claims that pursuant to sale deed,

the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue

records and also he was permitted to divert the land

for residential purposes under Section 95 of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

Thereafter, he submitted an application with

the first respondent to enter his name in the property

3

mutation register maintained by the first respondent -

Panchayath. Said application came to be rejected

stating that there is a dispute pending in respect of the

subject property, against which the petitioner filed an

appeal before the second respondent. Second

respondent by the impugned order kept the appeal in

abeyance stating that the property in question is the

subject matter of the dispute and the appeal cannot be

considered till the adjudication of the dispute in

question, against which the present petition is filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that the petitioner having acquired the right, title over

the subject property by virtue of a registered sale deed

is entitled for entering his name in the property

mutation register maintained by the first respondent as

specified in the Karnataka Panchayat Raj (Grama

Panchayat Budgeting And Accounting) Rules, 2006.

Hence, he submits that the impugned endorsement

issued by the first respondent as well as the order

4

passed by the second respondent is contrary to the

provisions of the said Rules.

4.

On

the

other

hand,

learned

counsel

appearing for the proposed respondent submits that

the proposed respondent has acquired right and title

over the subject property by virtue of consent decree

passed in RFA No.2048/2000 and the decree obtained

by the proposed respondent is prior to the sale deed

executed in favour of the petitioner and as such the

petitioner is not entitled for entering his name in the

property mutation register maintained by the first

respondent.

5.

I have examined the submissions made by

the learned counsel for the parties.

6.

Second respondent has kept the appeal in

abeyance till the adjudication of the dispute in respect

of the subject property on the ground that the share

allotted in favour of the proposed respondent is not

5

identifiable and the appeal filed by the petitioner can

be adjudicated after adjudication of the Execution Case

No.59/2011.

7.

There is a dispute with regard to the title

over the subject property and the petitioner as well as

proposed respondent are claiming right over the

subject properties by virtue of the registered sale deed

executed in favour of the petitioner and the consent

decree passed in favour of the proposed respondent.

It would suffice, if the second respondent after hearing

the petitioner as well as the proposed respondent

passes an order in accordance with law after providing

an opportunity of hearing. Hence, it would be

appropriate to direct the second respondent to

reconsider the application afresh filed by the petitioner

after providing an opportunity of hearing to the

petitioner as well as to the proposed respondent.

Accordingly, I pass the following:

6

ORDER

(1)

Writ petition is allowed in part.

(2)

The

impugned

order

dated

07.01.2021

passed

in

Appeal

No.852/2021

by

the

second

respondent at Annexure-A, is hereby

quashed.

(3)

Second respondent shall reconsider

the appeal filed by the petitioner

afresh and pass appropriate order

after notifying the petitioner and the

proposed respondent.

(4)

The said exercise to be concluded

within a period three months from the

date of receipt of certified copy of this

order.

(5)

All contentions are kept open.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DR