Karnataka High Court
Chiranthan vs The Deputy Commissioner on 29 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29747
WP No. 12678 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.12678 OF 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
1. CHIRANTHAN
S/O S J JNANACHANDRA
AGED 14 YEARS
2. KOHEEM
S/O S J JNANACHANDRA
AGED 4 YEARS
PETITIONERS ARE MINORS
REPRESENTED BY THEIR
NATURAL GUARDIAN AND FATHER
SRI.S.J.JNANACHANDRA
S/O T.S.JANARDHANA
NO.2956/13, 4TH CROSS
Digitally signed VINAYAKA LAYOUT
by ALBHAGYA NEAR POLICE CHOWKI
Location: HIGH DAVANAGERE TALUK
COURT OF
KARNATAKA AND DISTRICT-577 202.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.HAREESH BHANDARY T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT
DAVANAGERE-577 001
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29747
WP No. 12678 of 2015
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
DAVANAGERE SUB-DIVISON
DAVANAGERE TALUK AND DISTRICT-577001
3. THE DEPUTY TAHASILDAR
CHENNAGIRI TALUK
DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577 202
4. SRI.SHIVARAJ
S/O T.S.JANARDHAN
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
NO.568, 17TH DIVISION
K.B. LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE - 577 002
5. SRI.T.S.GIRISH
S/O T.S.JANARDHAN
MAJOR
KASHETTIHALLI VILLAGE
CHANNAGIRI TALUK-577 002
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.SHREEDEEP N, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.NAGAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R.4 AND R.5;
SRI.HARISHA A.S, AGA FOR R.1 TO R.3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS FROM R-1 WHICH ULTIMATELY RESULTED IN PASSING
OF ORDER ANNX-A DT.6.3.2015 MADE IN NO.RA/CR-29/2014-15
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29747
WP No. 12678 of 2015
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners, in this captioned writ petition, are assailing the order dated 06.03.2015 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-A.
2. The petitioners are claiming title over the property in question on the basis of the Will dated 12.08.2010 executed by their paternal grandfather. The petitioners contend that their grandfather, during his lifetime, has effected partition and has allotted shares to all his children in the immovable properties held by him excluding the petition property bearing Sy. No.45. The petitioners contend that by way of last testamentary arrangements, their grandfather has bequeathed the petition property under the Will dated 12.08.2010.
3. Placing reliance on the Will, the names of petitioners', who are legatees, were mutated in the revenue records.
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29747 WP No. 12678 of 2015
4. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner preferred a revision before respondent No.1/the Deputy Commissioner. Respondent No.1/the Deputy Commissioner vide impugned order has allowed the revision and the petitioners are relegated to establish their right under the disputed Will by approaching the competent Civil Court.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned AGA appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
6. The short point that falls for consideration is as to whether the petitioners based on a Will are entitled to get their names mutated and correspondingly, whether the Revenue Officials are obligated to effect mutation based on the disputed Will.
7. The issue on hand does not detain this Court for long in the light of law laid down by the Full Bench of this -5- NC: 2024:KHC:29747 WP No. 12678 of 2015 Court in the case of C.N.NAGENDRA SINGH VS. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE AND OTHERS1. In the above cited judgment, the Full Bench has clearly held that the legatee cannot seek mutation based on a Will. The Full Bench has further held that Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 does not confer jurisdiction on the Revenue Authorities to effect entries in the records of rights merely on the basis of the Will.
8. In the light of the law laid down by the Full Bench in the judgment cited supra, the order passed by respondent No.1/Deputy Commissioner does not warrant any interference. Since the Will is disputed, the petitioners have to be relegated to the competent Civil Court to seek adjudication of their rights on the basis of the Will. Unless Will is tested before the competent Civil Court, the petitioners, who are asserting right on the basis of the Will, are not entitled to seek mutation in the revenue 1 2002 ILR (Karnataka) 2750 -6- NC: 2024:KHC:29747 WP No. 12678 of 2015 records. Therefore, it was well within the Authority of respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner in relegating the petitioners to substantiate their right based on the Will. Therefore, in the light of the principles laid down by the Full Bench, the order passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner does not suffer from any material irregularity. Therefore, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court.
Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to prove the Will in the manner known to law.
The writ petition is disposed off.
Pending applications, if any, are also disposed off.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27