C T Purushotham Reddy vs The Special Deputy Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 11297 Kant

                              1

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
        DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                           PRESENT

             THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                 ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                            AND

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY

         WRIT APPEAL NO.615/2022(KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

C.T. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT ICHANGUR VILLAGE
ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK
BANGALORE - 562 107.                     ...APPELLANT

AND:
1.     THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
       BANGALORE - 560 009.

2.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
       BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION
       BANGALORE - 560 009.

3.     THE TAHSILDAR
       ANEKAL TALUK
       ANEKAL - 562 107.

4.     C. NARAYANA REDDY
       DEAD BY LRS

4(a)   SMT. RATHNAMMA
       W/O LATE C NARAYANA REDDY
       AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

4(b)   N. RAVINDRA REDDY
       S/O LATE C NARAYANA REDDY
       AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS.
                               2

4(c)   N. KAMALAKSHI
       D/O LATE C. NARAYANA REDDY
       AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

4(d)   JAYALAKSHMI
       D/O LATE C. NARAYANA REDDY
       AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

4(e)   SUVARNA
       D/O LATE C. NARAYANA REDDY
       AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS.

5.     C. RAMACHANDRA REDDY
       S/O CHIKKANANJA REDDY
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

6.     C.T. MUNISWAMY REDDY
       S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMA REDDY
       AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.

7.     C.T. SIDDA REDDY
       S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMA REDDY
       AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS.                 ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, A.G.A. FOR R-1 TO R-3;
    SMT. SRIVIYA, ADV., FOR
    SRI T.N. VISHWANATHA,ADV., FOR C/R-5)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER DATED 09.06.2022 PASSED IN WP No-
47447/2011 (KLR-RES) AND ALLOW THE SAID WP AS
PRAYED.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, VISHWAJITH SHETTY J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:

                     JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal has been filed by the

unsuccessful petitioner challenging the order dated

09.06.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of this

Court in W.P.No.47447/2011.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

parties and also perused the material available on record.

3. Facts as revealed from the records which are

necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are,

that the mutation order passed in the year 1972 was

challenged by the appellant herein by filing an appeal

before the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2)

of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Assistant

Commissioner vide order dated 08.10.2007 had allowed

the said appeal after condoning delay of nearly 35 years

in filing the appeal. As against the said order, the

contesting private respondents had filed revision before

the Deputy Commissioner, who had allowed the same

and being aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy

Commissioner, the appellant had preferred

W.P.No.47447/2011 before this Court, which has been

dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide the order

impugned. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits

that the name of the contesting private respondents has

been erroneously entered in respect of the land in

question though the same was not the subject matter of

the sale deed. He submits that the Assistant

Commissioner, having rightly appreciated this aspect of

the matter, had allowed the appeal and the Deputy

Commissioner was not justified in reversing the said

order.

5. Undisputedly, the revenue entries, which

were challenged by the appellant before the Assistant

Commissioner stood in the name of respondent no.5 for

nearly 35 years. The Assistant Commissioner had

entertained the appeal which was filed after 35 years and

the learned Single Judge has observed that the Assistant

Commissioner has not even appreciated the reasons for

condoning the inordinate delay. The Deputy

Commissioner has set-aside the said order passed by the

Assistant Commissioner on the ground that sufficient

cause was not shown for condoning the inordinate delay

of 35 years. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing

the writ petition has observed that since the entries in

the revenue records stood in the name of respondent

No.5 for more than 35 years, the appeal challenging the

same ought not to have been entertained by the

Assistant Commissioner. The learned Single Judge also

further observed that it is open to the appellant to

approach the Civil Court and establish his right over the

property in question and if he does obtain a decree in his

favour, the revenue entries shall abide by the said

decree.

6. We find no illegality or irregularity in the

order passed by the learned Single Judge, and therefore,

we find no grounds to entertain this appeal. Accordingly,

the same is dismissed.

SD/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

SD/-

JUDGE NMS