Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 996 (KAR)

S. M. Gowda v. C. V. Venkatesh

2015-08-26

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2015
ORDER : 1. According to learned Counsel, petitioners residents of the village are aggrieved by recording the names of respondents 1 to 3 in the revenue records, on the basis of sale deeds executed by respondents 4 to 6 conveying land measuring 1 acre 37 guntas in Sy. No. 24/A; 18 guntas in Sy. No. 24 and 35 guntas in Sy. No. 24/B of Koyyanahalli Village, in Mutation Register Nos. 17/2005-06, 34/2005-06, 64/2005-06, respectively. The appeals preferred by petitioners before Assistant Commissioner invoking sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, Act), were allowed and names of respondents 1 to 3 deleted with a direction that the name of State Government be recorded. Respondents 1 to 6 aggrieved by the said order preferred revision petitions before the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, invoking sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Act, registered as R.P. No. 25 of 2010 as also R.P. No. 70 of 2010, insofar as it relates to removal of names of respondents 1 to 3. The Deputy Commissioner, by order of even dated 31-10-2010, allowed the revision petitions, set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner and restored the names of respondents 1 to 6 in the revenue records. Hence these petitions. 2. Learned Counsel is unable to make out a legal right by which petitioners could said to be aggrieved by recording the names of respondents 1 to 6 in the revenue records relating to lands in question since admittedly petitioners are neither owners nor in possession of the said property, except that they are residents of the village. If the property belongs to the State Government, it is for the Government to ensure protection of its properties and certainly not for the petitioners to claim to act on behalf of the State. Petitioners at best are facilitators/complainants who informed the authorities of the Government of the alleged illegalities, hence have no locus standi to question the order of the Tahsildar. 3. Petitioners having no locus standi to question the order of the Tahsildar entering the names of respondents 1 to 6 in the revenue records, the appeal preferred under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act was without authority and ought to have been rejected. 4. There is no dispute that respondents 1 to 6 have instituted O.S. Nos. 3. Petitioners having no locus standi to question the order of the Tahsildar entering the names of respondents 1 to 6 in the revenue records, the appeal preferred under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act was without authority and ought to have been rejected. 4. There is no dispute that respondents 1 to 6 have instituted O.S. Nos. 159, 365 and 463 of 2012 arraigning the State and its authorities as defendants, for declaratory and injunctory reliefs in respect of the properties in question and are pending on the file of the Principal Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate First Class, Maddur. In the light of the Full Bench decision in C.N. Nagendra Singh vs. Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore and Others, 2002 (6) Kar. L.J. 391 (FB) : ILR 2002 Kar. 2750 (FB), holding that Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate on civil disputes since that is the domain of the Civil Court, on that score too the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Yet again the proviso to Section 135 of the Act states that the Revenue Authorities shall be bound by the decision of the Civil Court and are required to carry out amendments to the revenue records in terms thereof. 5. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order of the Deputy Commissioner restoring the names of respondents 1 to 6 in the Revenue Register. However, the remand of the proceeding to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh consideration in the facts, circumstances and law is unnecessary, more appropriately in view of the pending civil suits supra. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is modified, and in all other respects remains unaltered. Petitions are dismissed subject to the modification.