N Mallikarjuna Reddy S/O. N. ... vs The Deputy Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 3080 Kant

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
                   DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

                         PRESENT

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. PANDIT

                           AND

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE

         WRIT APPEAL NO.100073/2022 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

N. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY
S/O N. THIMMA REDDY
AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
& CONTRACT WORK,
R/O: HOUSE NO. LIG 17, KHB COLONY,
BEHIND CENTRAL JAIL, PARVATI NAGAR,
BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI 583 101
                                           ..APPELLANT
(BY SRI.V.P.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE AND
 SRI.GIRISH YADAWAD, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
       BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI 583 101

2.     THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
       HOSAPETE, DIST: BALLARI 583 101
       NOW VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT 583 201

3.     THE TAHASILDAR,
       HOSAPETE,
       DIST: BALLARI 583 101
       NOW VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT 583 201
                              2



4.   THE TAHASILDAR,
     KAMPLI, TQ: KAMPLI
     DIST: BALLARI 583 132

5.   THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
     KAMPLI,
     TQ: KAMPLI, DIST: BALLARI 583 132

6.   SMT. ANUSHA REDDY
     W/O PAVAN KUMAR M.
     AGE: MAJOR,
     R/O: NO. 004, RAVITEJA ENCLAVE,
     V. NAGENAHALLI, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS,
     PATILMUNIYAPPA LAYOUT,
     R.T. NAGAR POST, BENGALURU 560 0032

     N. THIMMA REDDY
     S/O THIPPANNA @ THIPPAIAH
     SINCE DECEASED, BY HIS LRS

7.   SMT. ERAMMA
     W/O LATE N. THIMMA REDDY,
     AGE: MAJOR,
     R/O: HOUSE NO. 17/45, LIG-17,
     KHB COLONY, BESIDE CENTRAL JAIL,
     PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI,
     DIST: BALLARI 583 101

8.   SMT. N. VIJAYA LAKSHMI
     D/O LATE N. THIMMA REDDY
     W/O G. SURYAKANTH REDDY,
     AGE: MAJOR,
     R/O: NEAR BALABHARATHI SCHOOL,
     3RD MAIN ROAD, GANDHI NAGAR,
     BALLARI, DIST: BALLARI 583 101

9.   CHANDRAKANTH REDDY
     S/O LATE N. THIMMA REDDY
     AGE: MAJOR,
     R/O: JAIGANUR ROAD, KAMPLI SUGAR FACTORY,
     KAMPLI, TQ: KAMPLI
     DIST: BALLARI 583 132
                            3



10.   SRINATH REDDY
      S/O BALAJOGI REDDY
      AGE: MAJOR,
      NELLUDIKOTTAL VILLAGE, TQ: HOSAPETE,
      DIST: BALLARI,
      NOW VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT 583 201

      SIDDARAMAIAHSWAMY S/O
      MATAPATHISHARABAIAH
      SINCE DECEASED, BY HIS LRS

11.   SMT. MATAPATHIMEENAKSHAMMA
      W/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAHSWAMY
      AGE: MAJOR,
      R/O: LIG-17, NEAR LIBRARY,
      BESIDES CENTRAL JAIL,
      PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI,
      DIST: BALLARI 583 101

12.   SMT. MATAPATHIRAJESHWARI
      D/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAHSWAMY
      AGE: MAJOR,
      R/O: LIG-17, NEAR LIBRARY,
      BESIDES CENTRAL JAIL,
      PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI,
      DIST: BALLARI 583 101

13.   VIJAYA KUMAR
      S/O LATE SIDDARAMAIAHSWAMY
      AGE: MAJOR,
      R/O: LIG-17, NEAR LIBRARY,
      BESIDES CENTRAL JAIL,
      PARVATHI NAGAR, BALLARI,
      DIST: BALLARI 583 101
                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1-5,
 SRI.VENKATESH C SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

      THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.100341/2022 DATED 31.01.2022 IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                               4



     THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR
JUDGMENT,   COMING    ON  FOR   'PRONOUNCEMENT   OF
JUDGEMENT', THIS DAY, ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE J.,
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                       JUDGEMENT

This intra court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to

the order dated 31.01.2022 passed in Writ Petition

No.100341/2022. The petition filed by the petitioner with a

prayer to quash the order dated 12.01.2022 passed by the

first respondent-Deputy Commissioner is disposed of with

the following observations:

"8. In that view of the matter, respondent No.1 was justified in directing the name of respondent No.6 to be entered in the revenue records relating to the land in question. However, this shall be subject to the outcome of the proceedings in O.S.No.17/2016. The revenue authorities are directed to mutate the revenue entries in the name of the person as per the judgment and decree of the Civil Court in O.S.No.17/2016"

2. The dispute before the first respondent-Deputy

Commissioner was in the form of Revision Petition under

Section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964,

wherein the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner,

Hosapete in appeal under Section 136(2) of Karnataka

Land Revenue Act was called in question. In the said

proceeding, the Assistant Commissioner upholding the

order passed by the Tahasildar refused to enter the name

of the petitioner in the property records which is sought to

be entered pursuant to the registered gift deed dated

30.01.1987 executed in favour of the mother of the sixth

respondent.

3. The gift deed in question is allegedly executed

by the father of the petitioner, in favour of the mother of

the sixth respondent in this appeal. The mother of the

sixth respondent died in the year 2007. The sixth

respondent made a claim based on the registered gift deed

dated 30.04.1987 to enter her name in the property

records. This claim was objected to by the petitioner and

accepting the objection filed by the petitioner, the

Tahasildar issued an endorsement directing the sixth

respondent to get her right established before the

appropriate forum. The said endorsement was not

acceptable to the sixth respondent. Hence, she had filed an

appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant

Commissioner rejected her appeal on the ground that the

suit in O.S.No.17/2016 on the file Civil Judge at Hosapete

is already filed to establish a claim based on a registered

gift deed referred above.

4. The sixth respondent filed a revision petition

before the Deputy Commissioner invoking Section 136(3)

of the KLR Act. Said revision petition is allowed in terms of

the impugned order dated 12.01.2022. The Tahsildar is

directed to enter the name of the sixth respondent in the

property records based on the registered Gift Deed dated

30.04.1987.

5. When this order is called in question, the

learned Single Judge has held that the first respondent-

Deputy Commissioner is justified in directing the name of

the sixth respondent to be entered in revenue records.

However, it is made clear that entry in the record of right

is subject to the outcome of proceedings in

O.S.No.17/2016.

6. Learned counsel, Sri.V.P.Kulkarni appearing for

the appellant placing reliance on the judgement of the Full

Court in the case of Smt.Jayamma and Others vs. State

of Karnataka and Others reported in ILR 2020 Kar.

1499 would contend that post aforementioned judgement,

interpretation of Section 129 and 136 of Karnataka Land

Revenue Act has changed. If there is a dispute relating to

the title in respect of the properties covered by a

registered document, then the title is to be established in

the Civil Court and till the title is established, entry cannot

be made in the record of right pursuant to the registered

deed.

7. Elaborating his submission, the learned counsel

would invite the attention of this Court to paragraphs

Nos.106 and 107 of the aforementioned judgement.

8. This Court has considered the aforementioned

judgement and also the contentions raised by the learned

counsel for the appellant.

9. The aforementioned judgement is rendered on

a reference. In terms of the reference, four questions were

framed and referred to the Larger Bench for consideration.

The declaration of law made in the aforementioned

judgement in terms of paragraph No.106 would reveal that

the revenue authorities namely Tahasildar, Assistant

Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have no

jurisdiction to decide the title dispute between the parties

and the authority to decide the title dispute exclusively

remains in the domain of Civil Court. It is also held that

any person aggrieved by the order of the Tahasildar in a

proceeding under Section 129 of the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act need not exhaust its remedy before the

Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and can

straight away file a suit seeking a declaration of title. A

person aggrieved by the order of jurisdictional Tahasildar

in exercising power under Section 129 of the Karnataka

Land Revenue Act, can prefer an appeal before the

Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner invoking

Section 136 (2) and (3) respectively only if there is no

dispute with regard to the title.

10. Placing reliance on declaration No. (iii) in the

aforementioned judgment, it is urged that the Assistant

Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner cannot

entertain any appeal or revision when there is a dispute

relating to the title. On these premises, it is urged that the

order passed by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner

is without jurisdiction. It is contended that the present

petitioner has questioned the title of the sixth respondent

who is claiming right under the registered gift deed. The

appellant contends that the property in question is the

property allotted to him in the oral partition as such the

father of the appellant could not have executed the gift

deed in favour of the mother of the sixth respondent.

11. It is to be noted that when the claim was made

before the Tahasildar to enter the name of the sixth

respondent and when the appeal was filed before the

Assistant Commissioner, the present petitioner had not

objected to the claim made before the Tahasildar or before

the Assistant Commissioner in the appeal. He appeared

during the proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner on

an application to implead himself as a party and for the

first time raised a dispute relating to the title of the

person, claiming under the registered deed.

12. This Court has considered the contentions

raised by the learned counsel for the appellant Mr V.P.

Kulkarni, appearing on behalf of learned counsel Mr Girish

Yadawad. This Court also perused the judgement of the

Full Court cited supra. Considering the questions referred

before the Full Bench in the aforesaid matter and also

considering the answers to the questions raised in the

aforesaid judgement and the declarations made in the

aforesaid judgment it is apparent that the three Judges

Bench of this Court in addition to giving certain directions

has also re-iterated well-settled position of law that

Revenue Courts in the exercise of jurisdiction under

Section 129 and 136 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act

cannot venture to decide the title of the parties over the

lands. In the aforesaid judgement, the Court has also

made it clear that the person who suffered adverse order

in the proceeding under Section 129 before the Tahasildar

need not exhaust his remedy before the appellate Forum

and he can straight away file the declaratory suit before

the competent Civil Court. In the backdrop of these

findings, declaration No. (iii) found in para No.106 of the

aforementioned judgement cannot be construed that a

person claiming certification of mutation based on the

registered deed is barred to file an appeal before the

Assistant Commissioner or the Revision before the Deputy

Commissioner. The said declaration in the backdrop of

what is decided in the aforementioned judgement is to be

understood as the appeal or revision before the Assistant

Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner respectively

is not maintainable if the appeal is filed challenging the

certification of mutation based on the registered deed. If

the contentions of the appellant are to be accepted, then

the revenue Courts will be stripped of the jurisdiction to

certify the mutations based on the registered deed, if there

is objection. Such contention is not acceptable.

13. It is also relevant to note that the full Court

has upheld the legislative competence of the State to enact

the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is

also noted that under the scheme of the act the mutation

certified will not amount to a declaration of title and the

same is subject to the decision of the competent Civil

Court.

14. In the case on hand the Tahasildar refused to

certify the mutation by issuing an endorsement directing

the parties to approach the Civil Court. The Assistant

Commissioner has also upheld the order of the Tahasildar

by dismissing the appeal. The Assistant Commissioner has

observed that the suit is already filed relating to the Gift

deed in question and declined to interfere with the order

passed by the Tahasildar.

15. The Deputy Commissioner in terms of order

impugned in the writ petition, has directed Tahasildar to

enter the name of the person claiming under the

registered document and the order of Deputy

Commissioner is in tune with various judgments of this

Court wherein it is repeatedly held that revenue authorities

are bound to certify the mutations based on the registered

documents. The learned Single Judge in terms of the

impugned order has re-iterated the well-established

position of law. Under the circumstances, the contentions

that the Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to

entertain the revision has no merit. Section 136 of the

KLR Act is still there on the statute. Merely because a

person objects to the certification of mutation based on the

registered documents, it cannot be said that the

jurisdiction of the revenue Court is ousted. The revenue

Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the applications,

appeal, revision to certify the mutation based on the

registered deeds.

16. In the instant case, it is noticed that the

appellant apart from claiming right over the property in

question-based on alleged oral partition has not placed any

material to prima-facie establish his right over the

property. Under the circumstances pendency of the suit or

belated objections of the appellant to certify the mutations

based on the registered deed, cannot take away the

jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts to certify the mutations

based on the registered documents. However, said

certification is only for a limited purpose of entering names

and it will not confirm the title. Confirmation of title is by

the Civil Court.

17. The learned counsel for the appellant

alternatively also contended that the order passed by the

Deputy Commissioner is in contravention of the principles

of natural justice in as much as the opportunity of hearing

is not given to the present appellant who was the

respondent before the Deputy Commissioner. It is noticed

from the order sheet of the proceedings before the Deputy

Commissioner that the present appellant got impleaded as

a party in terms of the order dated: 15.09.2021.

Thereafter the case is adjourned to 29.09.2021.

Subsequently, it is adjourned to 27.10.2021 and later to

24.11.2021. On that day, the presiding officer was busy

with other work and the case is adjourned to 22.12.2021.

On the adjourned date, the case was heard. However, the

present appellant was a respondent before the Deputy

Commissioner was absent. Later the order was pronounced

on 12.01.2022. Thus it cannot be said that the present

appellant was denied the opportunity of hearing. On

22.12.2021 the respondent before the Deputy

Commissioner was absent. Being absent on the day fixed

for hearing, the present appellant cannot contend that he

was denied the opportunity of hearing. Thus the

contentions that fair opportunity was not given to the

present appellant is untenable.

18. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not

find any merit in the appeal. The impugned order passed

by the learned Single Judge is in accordance with the law.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Needless to say, the title over the properties in

question will be decided in the pending suit without being

influenced by any observations made in this appeal.

No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE sh