Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 954 (KAR)

K. Channappa v. Deputy Commissioner

2013-08-21

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2013
Judgment : 1. Writ petitioners claim to be legal heirs of one late Kariyappa who had purchased agricultural land measuring an extent of 1 acre 16 guntas in Sy. No.62/2 of Uttari Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and also an extent of 28 guntas in Sy. No.63/1 of the same village, having purchased the same from one Narasimhaiah under a registered sale deed dated 4.6.1955 which had been registered at the office of the Sub-Registrar, Bangalore North Taluk. 2. It is also the case of the petitioners that their father had purchased the land and was in possession and enjoyment of the land as per the said sale deed ever since, had not got the khata transferred to his name in his lifetime and he passed away on 20.05.1980. Petitioners had succeeded to his estate as legal heirs. It is also averred that the vendor of said Kariyappa, viz., Narasimhaiah had sold an extent of 2 acres in Sy. No.62 and another 4 guntas in the very survey number, both situated at Uttari Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, in favour of one Chikkabettaiah through sale deed dated 21.1.1953. It appears khata had been made in the name of Chikkabettaiah vide MR No.27/1991-92. 3. It is the further case of the petitioners that while mutating the name of Chikkabettaiah for showing the change of ownership in respect of 2 acres of land in Sy. No.62 of Uttari Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, the revenue authorities carried out corrections to revenue records even in respect of an extent of 1 acre 16 guntas in Sy. No.62/2 of the same village which had been purchased by father of the petitioners and on the demise of Chikkabettaiah, the khata got transferred to his son by name Savandappa as per IHC No.9/1991-92. 4. However, the revenue entries in regard to 28 guntas of land in Sy. No.63/1 that was purchased by father of the petitioners continued to remain in the name of the vendor Narasimhaiah and after death of said Kariyappa, the petitioners made an application to the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk to effect khata in their name jointly by way of inheritance by bringing out the said facts to the notice of the Tahsildar. 5. No.63/1 that was purchased by father of the petitioners continued to remain in the name of the vendor Narasimhaiah and after death of said Kariyappa, the petitioners made an application to the Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk to effect khata in their name jointly by way of inheritance by bringing out the said facts to the notice of the Tahsildar. 5. The petitioners though pressed for orders repeatedly, the Tahsildar having not passed any orders in their favour, it appears had preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner entertained this appeal in RA [S] No.53/2010-11 and allowed the appeal as per order dated 25.06.2010 directing the Tahsildar to effect change in the khata in favour of the petitioners in respect of properties that had been purchased by their father. To this appeal, father of the fourth respondent had not been made a party and said Savandappa being aggrieved had preferred a revision petition against the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy Commissioner. Petitioners convincing Savandappa about the mistakes that had crept in, in the revenue records, it is pleaded that Savandappa had agreed not to press the revision petition and had not evinced any interest in the revision petition thereafter. It is also the case of the petitioners that notwithstanding the Deputy Commissioner has as per order dated 10.06.2011 allowed the revision petition, set aside the order passed by the second respondent and has remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration. 6. It is aggrieved by this order, the present writ petition. 7. Submission of Sri. C M Nagabhushana, learned counsel for petitioners is that the Deputy Commissioner could not have exercised the revisional jurisdiction under section 136[3] of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short 'the Act'] as per the ruling given by single Bench of this court in the case of 'MALLEGOWDA v. C. CHANNAVEERAGOWDA AND OTHERS' reported in ILR 2011 KAR 4225 and therefore the order is bad in law. 8. 8. However, Smt. M C Nagashree, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 who had been served with advanced copy of the writ petition, submits that as per the decision of the Full Bench of this court in the case of 'ASHOK v. PANDURANG AND OTHERS' reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4571, it has now been held that a revision petition under section 136[3] of the Act is tenable and therefore submits that under the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has only set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner for want of reasoning and proper consideration and therefore no interference is warranted. 9. Though Mr. Nagabhushana, learned counsel for petitioners would submit that even full Bench decision is now said to have been referred to be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice for re-examination in writ petition No.67926/2011, that in itself cannot alter the legal position as till the view taken by the full Bench in ASHOK's case [supra] is in any way modified or set aside, that rule prevails. 10. Therefore, as of now, it has to be taken that the revision petition is tenable and under the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner only remanded the matter for reconsideration. I do not think there is any need for interference by this court. 11. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed.