Dismissed

Sri D K Krishna v. the Deputy Commissioner

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2022WP/1804/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged order quashing Deputy Commissioner's revision admitting rights of two respondents mutant in 1970. Judge dismissed petition, holding revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to reopen long-settled mutation based on late 42-year-old villagers' representation.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000 payable to Respondents 4 and 5.

Sri D K Krishna Vs the Deputy Commissioner — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA

¶6

W.P.No.1804/2022 (KLR – RR/SUR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI.D.K.KRISHNA, S/O KENCHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT DODDARASINAKERE VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 570 001.

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.R.S.RAVI, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI.NARENDRA D.V.GOWDA, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA – 570 001.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, MANDYA SUB – DIVISION, MANDYA – 570 001.

¶14

THE TAHSILDAR, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 570 001.

¶15

¶16

SMT.SIDDALINGAMMA, W/O MAHADEVAPPA, AGED MAJOR.

¶17

SMT.JAYAMMA, W/O KUMAR, AGED MAJOR.

¶18

RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE R/AT DODDARASINAKERE VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 570 001.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI.L.RAJA, ADV. FOR C/R4 AND R5)

¶21

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2020 IN RP NO.44/2017 PASSED BY THE 1^ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D; GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO; STAY THE ORDER 30.06.2020 IN RP NO.44/2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-D.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

In respect of the land bearing Sy.No.750/2, measuring 0.25 guntas and the land bearing Sy.No.751/2A measuring 0.37 guntas, the revenue entries were mutated in favour of one Sri.Chandrashekara Swamiji.

¶25

¶26

On the death of Sri.Chandrashekara Swamiji,

¶27

applications were made by Smt.Siddalingamma and Smt.Jayamma who were Sri.Chandrashekara Swamiji’s brother’s daughters made an application for mutating their names in the revenue records on the ground that they were the sole surviving legal representatives and their names were entitled to be entered in the revenue records.

¶28

The said application was accepted vide M.R.No.39/1969-70 and their names came to be mutated. Thus, from the year 1970, the names of respondent Nos.4 and 5 were found in the revenue records.

¶29

As the matter stood thus, after about 42 years, the Tahsildar addressed a letter dated 20.10.2012 stating that certain villagers had given a representation to him stating that on the basis of fictitious document, the revenue entries have been entered in respect of Sy.No.750/2 and 751/2A and the said entries were required to be cancelled and possession of the land were required to be taken over by the State and utilized for public purposes.

¶30

¶31

In the said letter, it was also stated that the revenue entries did stand in the name of Smt.Siddalingamma and Smt.Jayamma on the basis of MR No.39/1969-70, but, an endorsement had been issued that MR No.39/1969-70 was not available. On the basis of this representation, the Tahsildar opined that as there was no copy of the MR No.39/1969-70, the entries in the RTC, on the basis of the said MR No.39/1969-70 were not legal and valid.

¶32

The Assistant Commissioner treated this

¶33

representation of the Tahsildar as an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short ‘the Act’) and by an elaborate order after examining the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, came to the conclusion that the original Khatedar Sri.Chandrashekara Swamiji had died leaving behind no legal heirs and in the absence of MR No.39/1969-70, the land would have to be resumed to the Government.

¶34

¶35

The Assistant Commissioner, in fact, in an appeal under Section 136 Sub Clause (2) of the Act, has recorded a finding that the persons in whose name the revenue records were mutated, had not proved that they were the legal heirs of Sri.Chandrashekara Swamiji.

¶36

Smt.Siddalingamma and Smt.Jayamma, being aggrieved, preferred a revision.

¶37

In the revision, the Deputy Commissioner, took the view that it was improper for the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner to come to the conclusion that MR No.39/1969-70 was not available when the UpaTahsildar had clearly given an endorsement stating that the mutation register was available but was in a fragile state. The Deputy Commissioner also came to the conclusion that it was impermissible for the revenue authorities to embark upon an enquiry to determine whether the original khatedar had left behind him any legal heirs. The Deputy Commissioner, accordingly, accepted the

¶38

¶39

revision and set-aside the order of the Assistant

¶40

Commissioner.

¶41

Being aggrieved by the said order of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner Sri.D.K.Krishna who is stated to be about 56 years in age, has filed this petition.

¶42

Learned Senior counsel Sri.R.S.Ravi contended that the petitioner had no personal interest in the matter and he was only ensuring that the land should vest in the Government in consonance with the principles enunciated under Article 296 of the Constitution of India as the deceased khatedar had not left behind any legal heirs.

¶43

He submitted that since the original mutation records ie., MR No.39/1969-70 were not considered by the Deputy Commissioner, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner could not be sustained. He also submitted that the Assistant Commissioner had rendered an elaborate and a detailed order highlighting the fact that Sri.Chandrashekara Swamiji had no legal heirs and, the

¶44

¶45

property would therefore have to be resumed in favour of the Government.

¶46

At the out-set, it is to be stated that the revenue entries admittedly stood in the name of Smt.Siddalingamma and Smt.Jayamma ie., respondent Nos.4 and 5 from 1970. A petition challenging these entries was made by the villagers in the year 2012 ie., after a period of 42 years.

¶47

The petitioner is aged about 56 years. Obviously, having regard to his age, in the year 1969-70, he would have absolutely no clue as to whether Sri.Chandrashekara Swamiji had any legal heirs or not. Merely because a villager or villagers make a representation stating that the Kahtedar had no legal heirs, in my view, it is simply not permissible for the revenue authorities to act upon such a representation and embark on an enquiry.

¶48

It is to be noted here that this representation that the Kahtedar had no legal representatives had been made

¶49

¶50

42 years after the Kahta had been changed in favour of the legal heirs of Sri.Chandrashekara Swamiji. In my view, this entertaining of an application by the Tahsildar and the reference to it to the Assistant Commissioner is nothing but a gross abuse of power and it is obviously at the behest of motivated persons. The Thasildar has, either willingly or unwillingly, started a controversy with the intention of creating unnecessary complication to the persons in whose name the khata had stood for nearly half a century.

¶51

It is also to be borne in mind that the revenue authorities have absolutely no jurisdiction to decide whether the khatedar had left behind him a legal heir or not. If a claim made that a certain person as a legal heir and that has been accepted after calling for objections and has been retained for 42 years, an exercise to reconsider this decision cannot be undertaken reviewed by considering a representation as the basis for an appeal after 42 years.

¶52

¶53

It is also to be borne in mind that if, the authorities who have a statutory duty to maintain the records, have themselves failed in this duty and admit that they do not have the records, they cannot shift the flame on the citizen and say that the entries are doubtful or suspicious. Viewed in any manner, the entire exercise undertaken by the Assistant Commissioner is a clear case of a malafide exercise of power.

¶54

The Deputy Commissioner was therefore justified in entertaining the revision and set-aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has simply noted that mutation register of the year 1969-70 was available and yet a finding had been recorded by the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar that the mutation register was not available and this spoke volumes about the legality of their orders.

¶55

In my view, the order of the Deputy Commissioner is absolutely just and proper and does not call for any

¶56

¶57

interference. I find absolutely no reason to entertain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/payable to respondent Nos.4 and 5, within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶58

SD/JUDGE

¶59

Sri D K Krishna v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri D K Krishna v. the Deputy Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Shivarudramma Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Shakila Narayan Rao Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ashwin Narayana Kollaje Vs the State of Karnataka

R D Venkatachalapathy Vs the State of Karnataka

Urugendra Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri a C Srinivasa Murthy Vs the Assistant Commissioner