Dismissed

Sri Venkateshappa v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC17 Oct 2019WP/13040/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka considered writ petitions seeking to quash a Deputy Commissioner's order upholding revenue mutation entries based on a registered sale deed. The Court affirmed the mutation, directing parties to resolve title disputes in civil court, while mandating strict implementation of Karnataka Land Revenue Act mutation provisions by revenue authorities.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.02.2019 affirmed; mutation entries in favor of respondents' father and successors continued.

Sri Venkateshappa Vs State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶6

W.P.NOs.13040-13042/2019(KLR-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SRI. VENKATESHAPPA S/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT UMMALLU VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI DODDANALLALA POST HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶9

2 . SMT. SHANTHAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA W/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT CHIKKAKURUTI VILLAGE, DODDAKURUTI POST NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE

¶10

TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.

¶11

3 . SMT. VIJAYAMMA D/O LATE NARAYANAPPA W/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT UMMALLALU VILLAGE

¶12

JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI DODDANALLALA POST HOSAKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI. S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE)

¶14

¶15

AND:

¶16

1 .	STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY IT PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001.
2 .	THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR – 563 101.
3 .	THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER KOLAR SUB-DIVISION KOLAR - 563 101.
4 .	THE TAHSILDAR MALUR TALUK, MALUR.
5 .	SRI. DODDABYRAPPA S/O LATE MARIAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS.
6 .	SRI. CHOWDAPPA S/O LATE MARIAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS.
7 .	SMT. NARAYANAMMA W/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
8 .	SMT. PILLAMMA W/O ANJINAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING A CHIKKA ULLURU VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI
	DASARAHALLI POST, HOSAKOTE
	TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4;

¶18

¶19

SRI. A.G. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR C/R-5 AND R-8 AND ALSO FOR R-6 AND R-7)

¶20

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN CASE NO.R.A.P./120/2017, DATED:18.02.2019 VIDE ANNX-A BY ALLOWING THE W.P.

¶21

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

O R D E R

¶23

Heard Sri. S.Vishweshwaraiah, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri.Y.D.Harsha learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Sri.A.G.Nagaraja, who have entered caveat appeared on behalf of respondent Nos.5 and 8 and who has also undertaken to appear on behalf of respondent Nos.6 to 7. Perused the case papers.

¶24

The dispute in this petition revolves around land bearing Sy.No.14/2, measuring 2 Acres 15 guntas situated in Gerupura Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malur Taluk, Kolar District. Mutation entry –MR No.3/199899 carried out on 05.01.1999 came to be challenged by the petitioners in R.A.No.272/2014-15 contending that

¶25

¶26

said entry which has been made by Thasildar was based on a document propounded by respondent Nos.5

¶27

to 8 which is prima facie fabricated, concocted document. Said appeal found favour by the Assistant Commissioner i.e., third respondent and by order dated 25.02.2017 said appeal came to be allowed by setting aside mutation entry M.R.No.3/1998-99. On perusal of said order it would also disclose that undisputedly there was a delay in filing the appeal, inasmuch as the M.R. entry relates to the year 1998-99 and appeal i.e., R.A.No.272/2014-15 had been filed during the year 2014-15. However, there is no reference with regard to the application for condonation of delay having been heard, adjudicated and condoned or otherwise. Be that as it may. The fact remains, petitioners were successful before third respondent- Assistant Commissioner.

¶28

Being aggrieved by said order, the contesting respondent Nos.5 to 8 filed R.A.P.No.120/2017 contending interalia that revenue authorities- Assistant Commissioner had committed a grave error in ignoring

¶29

¶30

the registered document namely, registered sale deed which was in their favour and as such Assistant Commissioner could not have allowed the appeal by setting aside the M.R.No.3/1998-99.

¶31

Deputy Commissioner after having noticed that land inquestion originally belong to one Sri.Munikempaiah, who is none other than the great grand father of petitioners and he was succeeded by his son Sri. Mariyappa and Sri.Narayanappa in whose names revenue records of the land in question was mutated by way of inheritance Khata M.R.No.1/1992-

¶32

93 and said Narayanappa in whose favour M.R.No.1/1992-93 had been made had sold said property under a registered sale deed dated 30.10.1972 in favour of the father of the respondent Nos. 5 to 8. As such, revenue authorities had no option but to mutate revenue records in favour of the father of respondent Nos. 5 to 8 who possessed a registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the said subject property. As such, he had set aside order passed by the Assistant

¶33

¶34

Commissioner in R.A.No.272/2014-15 dated 25.02.2017 by allowing R.A.P.No.120/2017 on 18.02.2019 and after order of Assistant Commissioner came to be passed revenue records had been mutated in the name of petitioners and in the light of observation having been made by the Assistant Commissioner that respondent Nos. 5 to 8 herein had to work out their right in a civil suit which resulted in said persons filing suit in O.S.No.228/2017 before Senior Civil Judge, Malur. Hence, Sri. S.Vishweshwaraiah, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners has vehemently contended that such entry carried out pursuant to the order of Assistant Commissioner is to be continued which can be subject to the result of suit. Where as, Sri.A.G.Nagaraj, learned counsel appearing for respondents supporting the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner would seek for dismissal of the petition.

¶35

In the light of the aforestated facts and rival contentions, it is to be noticed at this juncture that

¶36

¶37

effect of a registered document namely registered sale deed produced before revenue authority and steps to be taken by such authorities in that regard.

¶38

Lack of executive will to implement the mandate of provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, has not only resulted in flooding of litigations before this Court, but has also resulted in unwarranted litigations cropping up before Revenue authorities, which can be easily resolved by proper implementation of the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964. Insofar as issue relating to mutating revenue records are concerned, it is governed and controlled by Section 128(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. A person acquiring any right as a holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant of the land or assignee of the rent or revenue thereof by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise has to report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to the prescribed officer of the village within three

¶39

¶40

months from the date of such acquisition and said officer shall has to give a written acknowledgement of receipt of the report to the person so making it.

¶41

First proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section

¶42

128 of the Act would indicate that where the person acquiring the right is a minor or otherwise disqualified, his guardian or other person having charge of his property can make the report to the prescribed officer. Second proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 128 would clearly indicate that any person acquiring a right by virtue of a registered document shall be exempted from the obligation of reporting about such transaction to the prescribed officer.

¶43

Sub-section (4) of Section 128 of the Act mandates that Registering officer would not be required to registered such document presented by any person who acquires a right in a land as a holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant or assignee of the rent or revenue thereunder, unless such person liable

¶44

¶45

to pay the registration fee for such document also pays to the registering officer such fees as may be prescribed for making necessary entries in the record of rights and registers referred to Section 129 of the Act. It also mandates that on registration of the document, registering authority has to make a report of the acquisition of the right to the prescribed officer. Thus, on registration of a document of an agricultural land, it is the duty of the registering authority to send or forward an intimation to the revenue authorities and on the basis of revenue authorities are required to change the entries in the revenue records in respect of land which has been evidenced by a registered document.

¶46

A plain reading of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 makes it explicitly clear that it is the duty of the registering authority to make a report of the acquisition of such right to the prescribed officer since document is registered.

¶47

¶48

Section 129 of the Act mandates that

¶49

prescribed officer should enter in the register of mutation every report made to him under sub-Section (1) of Section 128 or intimation received by him under sub-Section (2) or sub-Section (4) of Section 128. Under sub-Section (2) of Section 129 prescribed officer is required to make an entry in the register of mutation and simultaneously post the same namely, copy of the entry so made in a conspicuous place in the village chavadi and has to intimate all persons whose names appear from the record of register of mutation to be interested in mutation, and to any other person whome they have reason to believe to be interested therein. Any such objections so received to any entry made under sub-Section (1) of Section 129 in the register of mutations either orally or in writing, the prescribed officer would be required to enter particulars of the objections in a register of disputed cases as required under sub-Section (3) of Section 129. The objections so entered, will have to be adjudicated by holding an

¶50

¶51

enquiry and the proceedings can be concluded by recording such objections by the prescribed officer in the register of mutations as prescribed under subSection (4) of Section 129. The mode, manner, method and process of such enquiry can be traced to subSection (5) to sub-section (7) of Section 129. It would also be relevant to note that the relevant rules which govern the steps to be taken by the registering officer as well as the jurisdictional Thasildar with regard to mutation entry to be effected are Rules 44 and 63 and they read as under:

¶52

“44. Intimation slips to be sent to Village Accountants.-

¶53

The Tahsildar in charge of the Record of Rights Work or other officer appointed for the purposed shall intimate the fact of completion of the preliminary record to the Registrar of the district and the SubRegistrar of the taluk with a request to send the intimation slips village-wise in Form 10 of all acquisition of rights in lands situated in the taluk, which are registered in their offices to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar shall keep a record of all such intimation slips (shall subject to the general or special orders of the State Government to the contrary) and send them to the Village Accountant.

¶54

¶55

63. Registrar and Sub-Registrar to send intimation slips to the Tahsildar .- (1) The Registrar of Sub-Registrar as the case may be shall on receipt of information under Rule 44 on the completion of the preliminary record, send to the Tahsildar, daily intimation slips in Form 10 of all transactions relating to lands registered in his office complied separately for each village. The Registrar or Sub-Registrar shall also send a consolidated list of all transactions once in a fortnight to the Tahsildar or to the authorized officer in Form 10-A.

¶56

(2) On receipt of intimation slip from the Registrar or Sub-Registrar in Form 10-A or on receipt of the report in Form 20-A the Tahsildar or the authorized officer shall cause the intimation slip to be entered in a Register in Form 10-B village-wise giving separate serial numbers for each village.”

¶57

A plain reading of the above Rule 44 which are procedural in nature would clearly indicate that Thasildar in charge or any other officer appointed for the said purposes has to intimate the fact of completion of preliminary record to the Registrar of the District and Sub-Registrar of the Taluk with a request to send intimation slips village wise in Form No.10 of all acquisition of rights in lands situated in the Taluk,

¶58

¶59

which are registered in their offices to the Tahsildar and Tahsildars has to keep a record of all such intimation slips for being forwarded to the Village Accountant.

¶60

Rule 63 mandates that the Registrar or subRegistrar as the case may be has to forward a report, shall on receipt of information under Rule 44 has to sent to the Thasildar daily intimation slips in Form No.10 of all transaction relating to lands registered in his office, complied separately for each village. In fact, the Registrar or Sub-Registrar has to forward a consolidated list of all transactions once in fortnight to the Thasildar or to the authorized officer in Form No.10A.

¶61

Rule 63 mandates that Registrar or SubRegistrar as the case may be on receipt of information under Rule 44 has to send to Thasildar daily intimation slips in Form No.10 of all transactions relating to lands registered in his office to complied separately for each

¶62

¶63

village. They should also send a consolidated list of all transactions once in a fortnight to the Tahsildar or to the authorized officer in Form No.10A. Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 63 mandates that Thasildar or authorized officer should cause the intimation slip to be entered in a Register in Form No.10-B village-wise giving separate serial numbers for each village on receipt of intimation slip from Registrar or Sub-Registrar in Form No.10, 10A or on receipt of report in Form No.20A as the case may be.

¶64

14. A combined reading of above provisions

¶65

namely, Sections 128 and 129 and Rules 44 and 63 would clearly indicate that whenever a registered document come into existence as prescribed under above said provisions it would not be necessary for the purchaser or the person acquiring right under the said registered document to intimate the jurisdictional Thasildar for mutating the revenue records. On the other hand, a statutory duty is cast on the Sub-

¶66

¶67

Registrar or the Registering officer as well as Thasildar to mutate the revenue records.

¶68

However, it is noticed that in none of these

¶69

cases where registered document has come into existence the rigor of the above provisions having been complied. There by it has resulted flood of litigations not only before revenue authorities but also before this Court. Legislature being conscious of the fact that when a registered document comes into existence a presumption would arise, had introduced Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, obviously keeping in mind Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. No doubt the presumption arising in such circumstances is a rebuttable presumption and where such presumption is sought to be rebutted, burden would be on such person to rebut presumption in an appropriate proceedings before competent Civil Court. It is because of this reason in catena of judgments this Court has consistently held that revenue authorities while exercising the powers under

¶70

¶71

the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 have no jurisdiction to decide the right and title of parties in respect of immovable property, but required to mutate the entries in revenue records on the basis of acquisition of rights as contemplated under Section 128 of the Act. For this proposition, full bench judgment of this Court in the matter of C.N. NAGENDRA SINGH VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

¶72

reported in ILR 2002 Kar. 2750 = (2002) 6 KLJ 391 can be looked up.

¶73

As already noticed herein above, there is lack of implementation of the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act namely, lack of executive will to implement the above provisions resulting in flood of litigations and as such it is high time that revenue authorities would wake up from their slumber. Hence, Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of Karnataka–first respondent herein has to take steps in this regard by issuing appropriate circulars for being implemented rather being ignored

¶74

¶75

and ensure that mandate of Sections 128 and 129 r/w Rules 44 and 63 is implemented in its letter and spirit so as to avoid the applicants knocking at the doors of the Thasildars or Assistant Commissioners and prevent them from running pillar to post.

¶76

Now, turning my attention to impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in R.A.P.No.120/2017 it discloses that based on sale deed dated 30.10.1972 propounded by respondent Nos.5 to 8 which swayed in the mind of revisional authority to arrive at conclusion that revenue records are required to mutated as per the recitals found in the registered sale deed. Revenue authorities would not have any jurisdiction to go into title of the property which is the subject matter of registered instrument. In such circumstances, it is for the contesting parties to work out their rights in a civil suit.

¶77

¶78

In the instant case there is already a civil suit which has been filed by the respondent Nos. 5 to 8 i.e., O.S.No.228/2017 and as such entry that is made in inrespect of subject land based on a registered sale deed dated 30.10.1972 deserves to be continued till judgment and decree being passed contrary to the same. In other words, if judgment and decree in the said suit being passed in favour of the petitioners herein, i.e., dismissal of the suit, necessarily revenue authorities are required to give effect to said judgment and decree as per mandate of Section 132(3) of the Act. Hence, contentions raised by Sri. Vishweshwaraiah, learned counsel appearing for petitioners cannot be accepted and it stands rejected.

¶79

For reasons aforestated, I proceed to pass the following:

¶80

ORDER

¶81

(1) Writ petitions are dismissed.

¶82

¶83

(2) Order dated 18.02.2019 in R.AP.No.120/2017 passed by the second respondent vide Annexure-A is affirmed.

¶84

(3) It is made clear that revenue entries effected in M.R.No.3/1998-99 on 05.01.1999 in favour of father of respondent Nos.5 to 8 is correct and subsequent entry made by way of inheritance khata in the names of respondent Nos.5 to 8 herein shall continue which would be subject to result and out come of judgment and decree that may be passed in O.S.No.228/2017 by the competent Civil Court.

¶85

(4) First respondent shall issue appropriate circulars to the Tahsildars, Assistant Commissioners and Deputy

¶86

¶87

Commissioners in the State of Karnataka to follow the mandate of Sections 128 and 129 keeping in mind observations made hereinabove.

¶88

(5) Registry is directed to forward copy of this order to the Chief Secretary as well as Principle Secretary, Department of Revenue forthwith. Compliance affidavit shall be filed by the Principal Secretary within an outer limit of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of receipt of this order.

¶89

(6) It is also made clear that Civil Court adjudicating the O.S.No.228/2017

¶90

shall not be influenced by this order.

¶91

SD/JUDGE

¶92

Sri Venkateshappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Venkateshappa v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narasimhamurthy Vs the Secretary

Smt. Lalitha Vs the Chief Secretary

Smt Channamma Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt Gayathri Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sridhar Maiya @ Sridhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Mushkariyamma Vs the Deputy Commissioner