Chikkagangaiah and Others vs The Thasildar, Bangalore North Taluk and Others

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—The petitioners have called into question the second respondent''s order, dated 23.07.2013 (Annexure-C) and the third respondent''s order, dated 23.07.2014 (Annexure-D), confirming the Assistant Commissioner''s order.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Erappa Reddy submits that the Tahsildar has effected the mutation entry in favour of the petitioners based on the partition deed. He submits that the partition deed is not a compulsorily registrable document. He submits that both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have erred by not giving any weightage to the unregistered partition deed and by placing reliance on the Will executed by Dyavaiah in favour of Mallaiah and Gangaiah, merely because it is registered. Sri Reddy submits that the genuineness of the Will is seriously disputed by the petitioners in their written statement in O.S. No. 465/2007 filed by the respondent No. 4. When the said suit is pending consideration before the civil court and when the fourth respondent has not yet established his claim, the revenue authorities are not justified in effecting the mutation entry in favour of the fourth respondent.

Sri Reddy relies on the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of C.N. Nagendra Singh Vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner and Others, (2002) ILR (Kar) 2750 : (2002) 6 KarLJ 391 : (2002) 3 KCCR 1493 , wherein it is held that the revenue court has no jurisdiction to go into the genuineness of the Will or the questions of title.

He has also relied on this Court''s decision in the case of Smt. Papamma Vs. The Deputy Commissioner and Others, (2005) ILR (Kar) 5777 : (2006) 4 KarLJ 330 to advance the submission that the revenue authorities do not have the power or jurisdiction to pronounce upon legal rights or legal entitlements or to pronounce upon the validity of the Will.

Nextly, he relies on the Short Notes No. 12 reported in ILR 1999 in the case of ARUN KUMAR AND OTHERS vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER, REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS in support of his submissions that in case of rival claims, the revenue authorities should direct the parties to approach the civil court.

Sri M. Srinivasa, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that till 2004, the name of Dyavaiah was rightly figuring in all the revenue records in respect of the lands in question. In 2004, without notice to the respondent No. 4 mutation entry was effected in favour of the petitioners which was challenged by the respondent No. 4 by filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. Sri Srinivas submits that on 29.02.1952 Dyavaiah had already executed the registered Will in favour of the fourth respondent bequeathing the property in favour of Mallaiah and Gangagiah. Gangaiah died issueless. On the death of Dyavaiah and Mallaiah, the name of the fourth respondent who is the solitary heir of Mallaiah ought to have been entered in the revenue records and that an inheritance khata ought to have been issued to him.

He submits that the property in question was not available for being partitioned on 23.07.2004, the date of the unregistered partition deed.

The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration.

It is trite that the revenue authorities cannot go into the questions of title and the validity of any document. The second proviso to Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 even exempts a person acquiring the right by virtue of a registered document from the obligation of reporting the acquisition of right to the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities are bound to act on the registered document, unless it is declared to be null and void.

If the mutation entry came to be effected in favour of the petitioners without notice to the respondent No. 4, it is a sound ground for setting aside the same.

The perusal of the impugned orders reveals that they are sustainable. But the parties have to resolve the lis by approaching the civil court.

For all the aforesaid reasons, I decline to quash the impugned order. The ends of justice would be met by my clarifying that the impugned orders shall be subject to the outcome of the suit proceedings which either party may resort to or may have already resorted to. The civil court shall adjudicate the matter independently of and uninfluenced by the impugned orders. Further, the finality cannot be marked about the impugned orders. They are always subject to the outcome of the suit proceedings.

This petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.