Maradeppa Tirakappa Muchatti vs Deputy Commissioner, Haveri and Others

B. Veerappa, J.—The petitioner filed the above writ petition challenging the order passed by the 1st respondent/Deputy Commissioner dated 20.11.2008 allowing the Revision filed by respondents 4 and 5 under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'' for short) and setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 05.07.2004.

It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is the joint owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 11:1e measuring 0-05 guntas and 0-01 gunta Pot Kharab of Bisalahalli village. As per the Mutation Entry No. 280, the joint name of Sri. Tirakappa Muchatti, Puttappa Maradeppa Muchatti and Dundappa Goolappa Muchatti certified on 01.01.1935, as per the partition in the family during 1932-33, vide Mutation Entry No. 249 dated 19.10.1932.

As per M.E. No. 1381, bunding Boja entry dated 20.08.1978, the joint name of Dundappa Goolappa Muchatti and others i.e., Tirakappa Muchatti and Puttappa Muchatti, came to be certified. Thereafter, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are jointly in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. One Sri. Dundaappa-father of respondent Nos. 4 and 5, being an old member of the family, the property was standing in his name and also showing others i.e., of his brothers. All the while, the petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were jointly enjoying the suit land. Such, being the state of affairs, taking the undue advantage of the name of Sri. Dundappa and others entered in the revenue records, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 made a Varadi to the Tahasildar for entering their names as legal representatives of the deceased Shri Dundappa stating that they are only the legal representatives. Based on the said varadi the Tahasildar Byadgi without proper application of mind and also without considering the material evidence on record, namely, Mutation Entry Nos. 249 and 280. Against the said order passed by the Tahasildar, the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent/Assistant Commissioner, who after hearing both parties by his order dated 05.07.2004 allowed the appeal and cancelled the order dated 08.12.2003, directing, entering the names of petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 jointly.

Against the said order, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed a Revision before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act, who after hearing both parties, has allowed the Revision holding that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are the absolute owners of the property in question. Therefore, the present writ petition is filed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

Sri. Laxman T. Mantagani, learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner holding that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are absolute owners, is totally without jurisdiction and the revenue courts have no jurisdiction to decide the rights of the parties in respect of immoveable properties. Therefore, he sought to set aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

Per contra, Sri. S.S. Bavakhan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5, sought to justify the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

Learned AGA has also supported the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and further submitted stating that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Commissioner, it is always open for him to approach the competent Civil Court to establish his title and interest in respect of the property in question. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the writ petition.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both parties and perused the entire material on record.

It is not in dispute that the earlier mutation entries made in M.E. Nos. 280, 249 and 1381 were shown in the names of both petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 & 5 in joint possession.

Based on the said earlier Mutation Entries, the Assistant Commissioner passed the order on 05.07.2004 setting aside the order passed by the Tahasildar dated 08.12.2003 and directed to enter the name of petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in the revenue records, jointly. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 and 5, Sri. S.S. Bhavakhan, contended that they have claimed ownership based on the registered sale deed and specifically stated that there were no joint mutation entries at all.

The Deputy Commissioner while passing the impugned order can only decide the mutation entry based on the source of title as contemplated under the provisions of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Admittedly, the Deputy Commissioner, while passing the impugned order, without verifying the source of title between the parties, has recorded a finding that respondents 4 and 5 are the absolute owners of the property in question. The Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to decide/declare the rights of the parties in respect of immoveable property. However, the Deputy Commissioner has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

The petitioner filed the above writ petition mainly on the ground that he is the joint owner along with respondent Nos. 4 and 5, in pursuance of earlier mutation entries. If that is so, it is always open for the petitioner to approach the competent Civil Court to establish his right along with respondent Nos. 4 and 5, in accordance with law.

In view of the aforesaid reasons, any observations made by the Deputy Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner with regard to title of the property in question will not come in the way of the petitioner to establish his title and interest in a competent Civil court, independently and ultimately, any decree to be passed by the Civil Court will be binding on the revenue authorities and they shall act only in accordance with the decree to be passed by the Civil Court and in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.