Sri. Hanumappa and Sri. Muniyappa vs The Deputy Commissioner and Others

B. Manohar, J.—In this writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 30-1-2010 made in Revision Petition No. 166/2005-06 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural. District, confirming the order dated 12-12-2005 passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Doddaballapur Sub-division u/s 136(3) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is that as per the Family Partition in the year 1971, the first petitioner was allotted 1 acre 6 guntas and second petitioner was allotted 24 guntas in the land bearing Sy. No. 55 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas of land. On the basis of the said partition, the petitioners approached the Tahsildar to get mutated their names. The Tahsildar mutated the names of the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid lands. Petitioners 1 and 2 are the brothers of Kalappa. The wife and children of Kalappa being aggrieved by the mutation of names of the petitioners in respect of the aforesaid land, filed an appeal u/s 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short ''the Act''), before the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur sub-Division. The Assistant Commissioner after considering the matter in detail allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the Tahsildar mutating the names of petitioners 1 and 2 in respect of the land bearing Sy. No. 55 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred a revision petition u/s 136(3) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner after reconsidering the matter found that no documents have been produced before the authorities to show that in the family partition, 1 acre 6 guntas and 24 guntas of lands were allotted to the shares of petitioners 1 and 2 respectively. However, the Deputy Commissioner has observed that the land had been granted in favour of Kalappa on 4-11-1982 and on the basis of the said grant, name of Kalappa was entered in M.R. No. 16/1983-84. Before entering the names of the petitioners in the revenue records, no notice was given either to Kalappa or the wife and children of Kalappa and accordingly, dismissed the revision petition. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

The grievance of the petitioners in the writ petition is that on the basis of the family partition, mutation entry has been made. The Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner without considering the contentions raised by the petitioners passed the orders which are contrary to law. Apart from that, the petitioners had filed O.S. No. 145/2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Devanahalli seeking for declaration and injunction and the same is still pending. Hence the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner are contrary to law.

On the other hand, Sri. B. Sharath Kumar, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 to 9 argued in support of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties.

The records clearly disclose that the land bearing Sy. No. 55 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas was granted in favour of the Kalappa on 4-11-1982. On the basis of the said grant, mutation entry has been effected in M.R. No. 16/1983-84 in the name of Kalappa. The Tahsildar while mutating the names of the petitioners has not given notice to Kalappa or his legal representatives. The said Kalappa died on 4-6-2004. Hence, the order passed by the Tahsildar cannot be sustained. There is no infirmity or irregularity in the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner.

Admittedly, the suit has been filed by the petitioners seeking declaration. Any entries made by the Revenue Authorities are subject to result of the suit filed by the petitioners. With the above observations the writ petition is dismissed.