Petitioner claimed mutation entry based on a registered Will; Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner set aside the Tahasildar's entry favouring him. Holding that validity of a Will is for the Civil Court alone, the High Court disposed of the petition leaving parties to the pending civil suit.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 102265 OF 2022 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
SURESH S/O. SHIVAPPA BANGARI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. SUDAMBI-581106,
TQ: BYADAGI, DIST: HAVERI.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. S.G. KADADAKATTI & SRI. LINGESH V. KATTEMANE, ADVOCATES)
AND:
MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH
Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1-R3; R4-DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.05.2022, PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI IN CASE NO. RTS:RA:CR:3/2021-22 VIDE ANNEXURE-G BY CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 19.04.2021 PASSED BY THE
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HAVERI SUB-DIVISION HAVERI, IN CASE NO. R.T.S/AP/83/2017 A VIDE ANNEXURE-F BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3.
accordingly entered. This entry of name of petitioner in the revenue records was objected by respondent No.4 and after conducting an enquiry in the dispute, the Tahashildar entered the name of petitioner in the record of rights. Aggrieved by the order of the Tahashildar, same came to be challenged by 4th respondent before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner after considering and hearing both parties set aside the order and ordered the entry of the name of respondent No.4 in the revenue records. This order again came to be challenged by the petitioner by preferring a revision petition before the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner, who confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Petitioner aggrieved by these two orders is before this Court.
4. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the provisions of Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1961, the order passed by the Tahashildar is correct on the basis of a registered document. The order that is being set aside by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner is without any
rhyme or reason. It is apparently seen that no doubt by virtue of the registered document changed the name in the revenue records in favour of the petitioner based on the registered Will. The orders of the Tahashildar was questioned before the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, which reversed the order of the Tahashildar and thereafter petitioner has filed a suit seeking a relief of declaration on the basis of registered Will, which is pending adjudication and respondent No.4 is the contesting respondent. This being the state of affairs, it will not be proper and possible for the revenue authorities to decide the validity or otherwise of the registered Will and no such powers are also vested with the revenue authorities. Therefore, it would be the Civil Court which would have jurisdiction and powers to decide the validity of the Will, either to uphold it or reject. The orders passed by the Civil Court in the suit pending between the parties would decide the rights of the parties and the validity of the Will. The entry in the revenue records would be outcome of the said suit.
5. In my view gains support from the decision of the full bench in the case of C.N.Nagendra vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengalore District and Others, reported in ILR 2002 KAR 2750.
“7. Section 127 of the Act deals with preparation of record of rights in the prescribed manner. Section 128 of the Act deals with report of acquisition of rights and Section 129 deals with registration of mutations and register of disputed cases. If any person acquires by succession, survivorship, inheritance, partition, purchase, mortgage, gift, lease or otherwise, any right as holder, occupant, owner, mortgagee, landlord or tenant of the land or assignee of the rent of revenue thereof, he shall report orally or in writing his acquisition of such right to the prescribed officer who in turn shall enter in the register of mutations every such report made to him. If any objections are received to any such entry the prescribed officer shall also enter the particulars of the objections in a register of disputed cases and thereafter he shall enquire into the said objections and dispose of the same in such manner as may be prescribed. A bare perusal of Section 128 makes it clear that the name cannot be entered in the record of rights merely on the basis
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16745 WP No. 102265 of 2022
of Will. The above definition reveals that there is no mention of Will. So according to petitioner's Counsel even putting the Will before the Revenue Court, one has to get a declaration from a competent Court, that is letters of probate and thereafter he can get his name entered in the mutation register. That apart, even according to petitioner's Counsel the mutation entry will not confer any right. Then there is no purpose of entering the petitioner's name. The argument cannot be accepted that the Revenue Officer can consider the Will, as he is not competent to decide the right under the Will. As per Section 135 a formal or a summary inquiry under this Act shall be judicial proceedings and not otherwise.
The cardinal principle of law is that if the language is simple and unambiguous, it is to be read with the clear intention of the legislation. Otherwise also, any addition/subtraction of a word is not permissible. Admittedly, the word 'Will' has deliberately not been used by the legislation and we cannot give a different meaning by adding the word 'Will'.
In view of the above discussion, mutation entry cannot be effected on the basis of the Will as suggested and argued.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:16745 WP No. 102265 of 2022
jurisdiction to go into the genuineness or validity of the Will or to the question of title in respect of the land in dispute. The decision of the Revenue Court has to be necessarily based on the undisputed facts. The Revenue Court cannot go into the disputed questions of relationship, status of the parties' title to the property or genuineness or otherwise of a document or challenge to the documents on the ground of fraud, undue influence, misrepresentation or mistake. As such, the petitioner cannot take advantage of Rule 43 in the case of a Will.
6. Under the circumstances, this petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to obtain suitable orders from the Civil Court and the outcome of the decision in the Civil suit with regard to the registered Will decide the rights of the parties for entry of name in the revenue records.
Ordered accordingly.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any
opinion with regard to the merits of the matter, more
specifically with regard to the Will in question.
Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE
CKK CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20
1 issue framed by the court
Whether revenue authorities can decide the genuineness or validity of a registered Will for mutation entry in revenue records under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.N. Nagendra vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and OthersRelied on¶5
ILR 2002 KAR 2750 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Suresh S/o. Shivappa Bangari
The Deputy Commissioner, Haveri
The Assistant Commissioner, Haveri Sub-Division, Haveri
The Tahasildar, Byadagi
Smt. Premilavva W/o. Shivappa Bangari
Pradeep Singh Yerur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
