M. Kempaiah, B.M. Venkateshappa, Rathnamma and Marappa vs The Deputy Commissioner and Others

B. Manohar, J.—The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the order dated 3.8.2010 passed in Revision Petition No. 116/2006-2007 by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural district, Bangalore, setting aside the order dated 27.10.2006 made in R.A. No. 79/2005-06 by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Bangalore. The grievance of the petitioner is that, joint family of Doddamuniyappa and his brother Nanjundappa are the absolute owners of the land bearing No. 49/2 measuring 1 acres 15 guntas and other properties situated at Samethanahalli Village, Anugondanahalli Hobli, Hoskote Taluk. The respondent No. 3 is the son of Doddamuniyappa and Smt. Muniarasamma is the daughter is the daughter of Nanjundappa. One Smt. Nanjamma and petitioner No. 4 are the daughter and son of Muniarasamma. One Muniarasamma W/o Kempaiah and her daughter Nanjamma W/o Munithimmaiah jointly executed the release deed in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 49/2 measuring 0.34 guntas in favour of Lakshmamma, who is the wife of Doddamuniyappa and mother of respondent No. 3. On the basis of the said release deed, the petitioner made an application before the Tahsildar to mutate his name in the revenue records. The respondent No. 3 rejected the said application. Being aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Assistant Commissioner, after examining the matter allowed the appeal and directed to mutate the petitioner''s name in the revenue records in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 49/2 measuring 34 guntas. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 herein preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and directed to enter the name of the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 on the basis of the partition deed dated 24.12.2004. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 4 to 6 argued in support of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and contended that as per the family partition dated 24.12.2004, the mutation entry has been effected by the competent authorities. He submits that the petitioner, relying upon the release deed dated 6.12.1974 has approached the Tahsildar to mutate his name in the revenue records after a lapse of 30 years. Further, Muniarasamma and Nanjamma have no power to execute the release deed in respect of joint family properties. He submits that the Deputy Commissioner after considering the matter in detail has allowed the revision petition and set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. He therefore submits that the same does not call for any interference and hence sought for dismissal of this writ petition.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders impugned in the writ petition. The records clearly disclose that on the basis of the release deed dated 6.12.1974, the petitioner has approached the competent authorities to mutate his name in the revenue records. However, the Tahsildar has refused to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner without looking into the records produced by the parties and relying only upon the release deed dated 6.12.1974 executed by Smt. Muninarasamma and Smt. Nanjamma has come to the conclusion that they are the owners and the petitioners are their legal representatives and accordingly directed to enter their names in the revenue records. The Assistant Commissioner has not looked into the partition deed effected by the joint family on 24.12.2004. The entire extent of land measuring 1 acre 15 guntas in Sy. No. 49 belonged to the joint family of Doddamuniyappa and Najundappa, who are one of the co-owners and who can execute the release deed and on the said basis, the mutation entry can be effected. Admittedly, there is a family partition in the year 2004. On the basis of the said partition deed, mutation entry has been effected. Though the petitioner had got the release deed on 6.12.1974, he has exercised his right belatedly, that too, after a lapse of 30 years by making an application for effecting mutation in his favour. The Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner have not examined the records in proper perspective. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the matter has to be reconsidered by the Assistant Commissioner afresh and pass orders thereon in accordance with law. Accordingly, I allow this petition by setting aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and remand the matter to the Assistant Commissioner to reconsider the matter afresh after looking into the entire records and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law and within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. All the contentions of the parties are left open.