Mr B Ramaiah vs Mr B Nayanappa
2021 Latest Caselaw 5204 Kant

                                   1




               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                       DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                              BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

          WRIT PETITION No.5386/2007 (KLR, RR/SUR)

Between

Mr.B Ramaiah, aged 33 years
Son of late Doda Honnurappa
r/o Korlagundi village
Bellary Taluk, Bellary District.                ...Petitioner

(By Sri Narayan V Yaji, Advocate)
And

1.    Mr.B Nayanappa, aged 50 years
      Son of late Doda Honnurappa
      r/o Korlagundi village
      Bellary Taluk, Bellary District.

2.    The Village Accountant
      Korlagundi village
      Bellary Taluk, Bellary District.

3.    The Revenue Inspector
      Koluur Hobli, Bellary Taluk
      Bellary District.

4.    The Tahsildar, Bellary Taluk
      Bellary District.
5.    The Assistant Commissioner,
      Bellary.
                                   2




6.    The Deputy Commissioner
      Bellary District, Bellary.                  ... Respondents

(By Sri M Keshava Reddy, Advocate for R1,
Smt.Girija S Hiremath, HCGP, for R2 to R6)

      This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated
Nil.February, 2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary
Dist. in Appeal Dispute No.28/06-07 which is produced as per
Annexure-G.

     This writ petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court
passed the following:
                             ORDER

On the basis of the registered gift deed dated 18.1.1982

executed by the mother of the petitioner, the name of the

petitioner was mutated in the revenue records in respect of land

bearing Sy.No.123A/1 measuring 6.20 acres situated at

Korlagundi Village, Bellary Taluk. Thereafter, the 4th respondent

- Tahasildar by order dated 17.4.2002 dismissed the dispute

raised by the 1st respondent and directed the parties to approach

the Civil Court to agitate their claim.

2. Pursuant to the order of the 4th respondent, the 1st

respondent filed OS No.181/2002 before the jurisdictional Civil

Court seeking for declaration of title in respect of the land to an

extent of 3.10 acres. The jurisdictional Civil Court after

examining the revenue records dismissed the suit filed by the 1st

respondent. Pursuant to the dismissal of the suit, the 1st

respondent filed an appeal under Section 136(2) of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the 5th respondent.

The 5th respondent by order dated 6.5.2006 taking into account

the dismissal of the suit filed by the 1st respondent and also the

conduct of the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal. Being

aggrieved, the 1st respondent preferred a revision petition under

Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The 6th

respondent by order dated Nil February, 2007 allowed the appeal

directing the Tahsildar to mutate the name of the petitioner and

the 1st respondent jointly in the revenue records in respect of the

land in question. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition

is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the name of the petitioner was mutated in the revenue records

in pursuance of the registered gift deed executed by his mother.

Hence, he submits that in the absence of challenge to the said

gift deed by the 1st respondent, the 6th respondent committed an

error in passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for the

petitioner has produced a copy of the judgment and decree

dated 28.11.2019 passed in OS No.244/2011 by the Principal

Civil Judge and JMFC, Ballari wherein the claim of the 1st

respondent for partition and separate possession of his share in

the land in question is also dismissed.

4. On the other hand, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the petitioner

and 1st respondent having not established absolute right over

the land in question, the 6th respondent was justified in directing

the Tahasildar to mutate the name of the petitioner and the 1st

respondent jointly.

5. I have considered the submissions of the learned

counsel for the parties.

6. Admittedly, the name of the petitioner was mutated

in the revenue records in respect of the land in question in

pursuance of the registered gift deed executed by his mother.

The 1st respondent has not challenged the validity of the gift

deed before the competent Court of law and the gift deed is still

in subsistence. Hence, the Tahsildar concerned having regard to

the registered gift deed has rightly mutated the name of the

petitioner in the revenue records in respect of the land in

question by exercising the power under Section 128 of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner

ignoring this aspect has held that the registered gift deed could

not have been executed in favour of the petitioner unilaterally.

The Deputy Commissioner exercising the power under the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot sit over the validity of the

gift deed. Hence, the order passed by the 6th respondent is not

sustainable in law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Writ petition is allowed;

ii) The impugned order dated Nil February, 2002 passed

by the Deputy Commissioner, Bellary vide Annexure-

G is hereby quashed;

iii) The 4th respondent is hereby directed to restore the

name of the petitioner in the revenue records in

respect of the land in question;

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

bkm