Nekkanti Apparao and Others vs The Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere District and Others

Ram Mohan Reddy, J—One Nekkanti Veeranna, S/o. late Apparao having taken in marriage Smt. Satyavati, begot one daughter by name Smt. Kante Parvatha Vardhanamma, W/o. Abbanna and four sons by names, Nekkanti Apparao, since dead by legal representative/petitioner No. 1, Nekkanti Sathyanarayana/petitioner No. 2, Nekkanti Subbarao/respondent No. 5 and Nekkanti Adinarayana/respondent No. 6. During the lifetime of Nekkanti Veeranna, it is said that a partition of joint family properties was effected under a registered deed of partition. The immovable property bearing Sy. No. 76/6 measuring 1 acre 10 guntas in Thyavanage village, Basavapatna Hobli, Channagiri Taluk, standing in the name Smt. Satyavati in the revenue records, when conveyed in favour of her husband Nekkanti Veeranna, his name was required to be entered in the revenue records in view of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (''Act'' for short) since 1% stamp duty was paid towards fee for effecting such entry, without requiring the purchaser to move the prescribed officer under the ''Act'' to record his name in the revenue registers maintained under Section 127 of the ''Act''. Instead of so doing, Tahsildar is said to have recorded the names of the four sons of Nekkanti Veeranna, while deleting the name of Smt. Satyavati in the revenue records. That order of the Tahsildar when called in question by Nekkanti Veernna invoking sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the ''Act'', the Tahsildar, without authority of law, exercising a jurisdiction of a Civil Court, recorded a finding, according to the learned counsel for petitioners, that Nekkanti Veeranna, in fact, was a signatory to an unregistered partition deed between himself and his sons, where under, the property in question was subject matter of partition and accordingly, dismissed the appeal.

That order was carried in Revision Petition under sub Section (3) of Section 136 of the ''Act'' before the Deputy Commissioner, during pendency of which, on 06.02.2011, Nekkanti Veeranna was reported to have died. In that proceeding, daughter of Nekkanti Veeranna is said to have filed I.A. to come on record and prosecute the proceeding as legal representative, since right to sue survived, while the sons were arraigned as respondents in the proceeding. The Deputy Commissioner, it is alleged, without passing an order on the I.A. permitting the daughter of Nekkanti Veeranna to prosecute the proceeding, is said to have, by final order impugned, set-aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and directed recording the name of 4th respondent/daughter and to delete the names of the sons. Hence, this petition to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that the 4th respondent has instituted O.S. No. 230/2011 on the file of the Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.), Channagiri, for declaration, partition and separate possession of her 1/5 share in several properties including item No. 3, the property in question, arraigning all her brothers none other than petitioners and respondents 5 and 6 as party defendants.

Learned counsel''s submission that the finding recorded by the Assistant Commissioner in the order in appeal preferred by Nekkanti Veeranna that the appellant was a signatory to the unregistered partition deed and that finding will not touch upon the root of the jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner under Section (2) of Section 136 of the ''Act'', is noticed only to be rejected, having regard to the well settled law by the Full Bench of this Court in C.N. Nagendra Singh Vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner and Others, (2002) ILR (Kar) 2750 : (2002) 6 KarLJ 391 : (2002) 3 KCCR 1493 holding that Revenue Courts have no jurisdiction to adjudicate and decide civil disputes, since those questions fall within the domain of Civil Courts.

A faint submission is made that the Deputy Commissioner without passing an order on the I.A. Filed by 4th respondent/daughter to come on record and prosecute the revision petition consequent upon death of her father Nekkanti Veeranna on 06.02.2011, nevertheless, the order impugned does not disclose any such order to have been passed permitting the 4th respondent/daughter to come on record and prosecute the case, but the cause title in the order discloses that the deceased petitioner is represented by the legal representative.

The next submission of learned counsel is that the order dated 18.05.2012, Annexure-P, of the Deputy Commissioner directing recording the name of 4th respondent/daughter in the revenue records by deleting the names of petitioners and respondents 5 and 6, is incorrect, since by then, 4th respondent had instituted O.S. No. 230/2011 seeking 1/5 share in the said property and therefore, names of all the legal representatives of deceased Nekkanti Veeranna were required to be entered in the revenue records.

Learned counsel for 4th respondent/daughter seeks to sustain the order of the Deputy Commissioner as being well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference, and in the light of the proviso to Section 135 of the ''Act'', the Revenue Officers will have to carry out necessary amendments in the revenue records so as to record the name of persons who are held to be entitled to the right, title and interest over the immovable property in accordance with the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 230/2011.

In the circumstances, the genesis of the problem is the action of the sons of Nekkanti Veeranna in having their names recorded in the revenue records without any right, title or interest, though the claim to such rights was based upon an unregistered partition deed, the legality and validity of which the authorities had no jurisdiction to decide, legality and validity, and ought to-have directed the parties, particularly the sons of Nekkanti Veeranna to approach the Civil Court for appropriate declaration. Having not done so, resulted in the father filing an Appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, who without noticing his jurisdiction, recorded finding on the unregistered partition deed, which finding is null and void and one without jurisdiction following which the father approached the Revisional Court before the Deputy Commissioner to have that order set-aside. It may be that the Revisional Authority did not pass an order on the I.A. filed by the 4th respondent to come on record and prosecute the petition, however, it matters less as to whether or not the Deputy Commissioner did not pass an order allowing the deceased revision petitioner to be represented by his daughter. Be that as it may, the fact that the 4th respondent is the daughter of Nekkanti Veeranna is not in dispute and the further fact that she is one of the legal representative of deceased is also not in dispute. It is not as if petitioners and respondents 5 and 6 objected, in writing, to allow the I.A. Merely because no order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of quasi judicial jurisdiction permitting 4th respondent/daughter to come on record as legal representative of deceased Nekkanti Veeranna, petitioner, in my considered opinion, is of no serious consequence.

In the circumstances, there is no necessity to quash the order of the Deputy Commissioner. Suffice it to notice that proviso under Section 135 of the ''Act'' binds the revenue authorities to the judgment and decree of the Civil Court, since parties are litigating over their disputed right, title and interest over immovable property in O.S. No. 230/2011, for declaration, partition and separate possession. In other words, the Revenue Authorities are bound by law to record the names of successful parties. The name of 4th respondent/daughter presently shown in the revenue records will be subject to the result of O.S. No. 230/2011.

In the peculiar facts and circumstances, cost quantified at Rs. 20,000/- payable by petitioners and respondents 5 and 6, to the 4th respondent.