Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1341 (KAR)

Chandrashekhar v. State of Karnataka

2015-12-14

A.S.BOPANNA

body2015
ORDER : A.S. Bopanna, J. 1. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 13.06.2011 passed by the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner as at Annexure-'H' to the petition. 2. The petitioners claim right in respect of the agricultural property bearing Sy. No. 488 measuring 7 acres 1 gunta of Ranjol Kheni Village, Bidar Taluk and District, having purchased the same under a sale deed dated 12.02.1993 from Smt. Eramma and Smt. Shankremma, the wives of late Shankreppa. Pursuant to the purchase, the petitioners are stated to have secured the Mutation orders based on the sale deed and the Revenue Records has been maintained in the name of the petitioners. 3. When this was the position, the third respondent contending that the name of the petitioners have been wrongly included in the Revenue Register, had filed a Revision Petition before the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act in REV/APPL/CR-06/2008-09. The Tahsildar had filed a para wise comments in the said proceedings. Based on the same, the Deputy Commissioner by the order dated 13.06.2011 has directed that the name of the petitioners be deleted from the Record of Rights and the third respondent has been directed to file an application for change of Mutation before the concerned Revenue Authority and a direction has been issued to dispose of the same in accordance with law. The petitioners claiming to be aggrieved by the same are before this Court. 4. The fact that the property in question was originally Inam land is not in dispute. The application seeking re-grant of the said land was filed by Sri. Veerbhadrappa namely the father of the third respondent. He was before this Court in CRP No. 1058/1989 which was connected with CRP No. 318/1989. This Court by order dated 14.09.1990 had rejected the contention purforth therein. In that light, the claim as had been made by the father of the third respondent claiming right to the property under Shankreppa was not accepted by this Court. To the said petition, Smt. Eramma and Smt. Shankremma, the two wives of late Shankreppa were also arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3. On dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, there was no impediment whatsoever for Smt. Eramma and Smt. Shankremma to enjoy the property as their own. To the said petition, Smt. Eramma and Smt. Shankremma, the two wives of late Shankreppa were also arrayed as respondent Nos. 2 and 3. On dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, there was no impediment whatsoever for Smt. Eramma and Smt. Shankremma to enjoy the property as their own. It is in that light Smt. Eramma and Shankeramma have sold the property to the petitioners herein through the sale deed dated 12.02.1993 while exercising ownership rights over the property. Based on the said registered document, the petitioners have secured the mutation order dated 17.05.1993. It is in that view the name of the petitioner was also indicated in the record of rights. 5. If the said sequence of events is kept in view and in that light if the order dated 13.06.2011 passed by the first respondent Deputy Commissioner impugned herein is perused, the fact that the said property to which the petitioner claims was not part of the will under which the third respondent claims is evident. Further though the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner has taken note of the para-wise reply filed by the Tahsildar to indicate that the mutation order has not been made, the operative portion of the order would disclose that in fact there was mutation order since the Deputy Commissioner has reserved the liberty to the third respondent to file an application to seek for change of mutation. Further what is also to be taken into consideration is that in the written submission filed on behalf of the third respondent, the third respondent claims right to the property under Smt. Eramma and Shankremma and they have further contended that the document executed by Smt. Eramma and Shankremma is not a genuine document. The very contention would disclose that if at all the third respondent is to claim any right in respect of the said property, in law, they would have to get sale deed under which the petitioners claim right to the property nullified in accordance with law. Until the sale deed dated 12.2.1993 executed by Smt. Eramma and Shankeramma in favour of the petitioner is in force, the petitioner would remain entitled to seek for mutation orders. 6. Until the sale deed dated 12.2.1993 executed by Smt. Eramma and Shankeramma in favour of the petitioner is in force, the petitioner would remain entitled to seek for mutation orders. 6. Therefore, in that circumstance, the Deputy Commissioner in any event could not have determined the rights of the parties in respect of the immovable property as against the documents based on which the petitioner therein is claiming right to the said property. Even otherwise, the document which is the extract of the Khatha Change Register would indicate that the mutation order has been made in favour of the petitioner by taking note of the sale deed dated 12.02.1993 and the change has been effected as far back as on 17.05.1993. In respect of such entry, the third respondent in any event could not have filed a revision petition as late as in the year 2009. The first respondent-Deputy Commissioner in fact has lost sight of this aspect of the matter as well. As already indicated unless the third respondent gets his right established in respect of the property in a properly constituted suit before a Civil Court, the revenue authorities cannot nullify the sale transaction by which the petitioner has purchased the property. 7. Therefore, for the above stated reasons, the order dated 13.06.2011 is not sustainable. The same is accordingly quashed. The petitions stand disposed of in the above terms. Order accordingly.