A writ petition challenging a revision order allowing a higher authority to set aside a mutation entry. The Court held the petition lacks merit, affirming that revenue authorities cannot decide title but must follow valid court decrees for mutation, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
W.P.NO.31000/2014 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SARASWATHAMMA W/O LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT ALAMABADI VILLAGE, MALUR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT – 562 106.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.S. VARADARAJAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2
RESIDING AT NO.568 6TH CROSS, CHANNAKESHAVA NAGARA, SINGASANDRA POST BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK – 560 036.
3
RESPONDENTS 5 TO 8 ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKATHOGUR VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK – 560 036.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.D. HARSHA, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. P.V. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI. P.V. KALPANA, ADVOCATE FOR R-8; R-5, R-6, R-7 (a) TO R-7(d) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:21.01.2014 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN REVISION PETITION NO.213/200607 VIDE ANN-A AND RESTORE THE ORDER DATED:01.12.2006 PASSED BY THE R-2.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Petitioner has called in question order dated
21.01.2014 passed by first respondent in R.P.No.213/2006-07Annexure-A and seeks for restoring the order dated 01.12.2006 passed by second respondent in R.A.(S)111/2006-07.
appearing for parties and on perusal of records it would
4
indicate that land bearing various survey numbers situated at Doddathogur village, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, originally belonged to Sri. Lakshmaiah, who is the father-in-law of petitioner and father of respondent Nos.4 to 8. Petitioner herein claiming 1/7th share in said property and had filed a suit in O.S.No.111/1983 for partition and separate possession. In said suit a compromise petition under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC came to be filed and accepting the same a compromise decree came to be passed. It is thereafter mutation entry came to be effected in the name of respondent Nos.4 to 8 by M.R.No.29/2006-07 by the jurisdictional Tahsildar i.e., 3rd respondent.
5
jurisdictional Thasildar adjudicated matter afresh and by order dated 29.05.2006 rejected the contentions of petitioner and upheld contentions of respondent No.4 to 8 herein vide Annexure-C. Being aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed in R.A.(S)111/2006-07 which came to be allowed by order dated 01.12.2006 by second respondent opining that property originally belonged to father-in-law of petitioner and it is a joint family property. Being aggrieved by same, respondent No.4 herein filed R.P.No.213/2006-07 which has been allowed by order dated 27.01.2014- Annexure-A. Hence, petitioner is before this Court.
6
and same is liable to be dismissed at the threshold itself
for the reasons indicated hereinbelow.
petitioner claiming share by virtue of her husband being member of the joint family of deceased Sri.Lakshmaiah (father-in-law of the petitioner) had filed a suit in O.S.No.111/1983 which resulted in a compromise petition being filed under Order XXIII and Rule 3 of CPC and pursuant to same a judgment and decree came to be drawn. It is based on said compromise decree, the jurisdictional Thasildar had effected the mutation entry namely, had mutated revenue records of subject land –M.R.No.29/2006-07. However, challenging the recording of compromise petition, petitioner herein filed one more suit namely O.S.No.640/2003 to declare the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.111/1983 as null and void. The claim made in the suit O.S.No.640/2003 came to be rejected by this Court in W.P.No.14233 and W.P.No.14294/2009
and order passed in writ petition is said to have
7
attained finality. It the light of observations having been made while disposing of the writ petition, petitioner is said to have filed Misc.Case.No.75/2011 for recalling the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.111/1983. Same is said to be still pending.
powers under Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the revenue authorities would have no jurisdiction to decide title of the parties in respect of immovable properties. However, they would be entitled to mutate the revenue records on the basis of acquisition of rights of parties as contemplated under Section 128 which includes survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift etc., In the light of respondent Nos.4 to 9 having put up their claim on the basis of compromise decree passed in O.S.No.111/1983, the revenue authorities have rightly proceeded to mutate the revenue records as they are bound by the decree as prescribed under sub- Section (3) of Section 132 of the
8
Act. It is because of this precise reason, Deputy Commissioner has opined and held that Assistant Commissioner could not have decided the title to the property by declaring that petitioner is a member of joint family. Said opinion expressed by the Assistant Commissioner was beyond his jurisdiction and has rightly been set aside by Deputy Commissioner by allowing the revision petition. The observations made therein is to the effect that entries made would be subject to the outcome of the decision that may be rendered in Miscellaneous Petition No.75/2011. Said finding deserves to be affirmed. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed subject to affirming the observations made by the Deputy Commissioner under the impugned order.
SD/JUDGE
RU
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the revenue authorities exceeded their jurisdiction by allowing a revision petition against an order relating to mutation entries.
Whether the Deputy Commissioner correctly held that the Assistant Commissioner had no power to decide title of the property while effecting mutation.
Whether the compromise decree attained finality and binds the revenue authorities for mutation purposes.
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Smt. Saraswathamma w/o Late Narayappa
Deputy Commissioner Bangalore District
Assistant Commissioner Bangalore South
The Special Tahasildar Bangalore South
Rathnappa s/o Late Lakshmaiah
Shivakumar s/o Late Lakshmaiah
Aravind Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
