Smt Maqboolunnissa vs S K Ranjan
2022 Latest Caselaw 10683 Kant

                            1



 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                        PRESENT

            THE HON'BLE MR. ALOK ARADHE
                ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

                           AND

         THE HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE J.M. KHAZI

             W.A. NO.1184 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
                           IN
             W.P.No.5928 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:

SMT. MAQBOOLUNNISSA
W/O LATE SHRI. SHARAFUDDIN
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
R/O NO.34, KAUSAR NAGAR
P AND T COLONY, BENGALURU-560032.
                                            ... APPELLANT
(BY MR. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
   MRS. SIRI RAJASHEKAR, ADV.,)

AND:

1.   S.K. RANJAN
     S/O LATE SHRI. S.R. KRISHNAN
     AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
     SAMRUDHI NO.98/6, 13TH CROSS
     IN BETWEEN 4TH AND 5TH MAIN
     MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003.

2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
     REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
     REVENUE DEPARTMENT
     M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

3.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
                             2



     BEERASANDRA GRAM
     KUNDANA HOBLI
     DEVANAHALLI TALUK
     BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-560097.

4.   THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
     DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION
     DODDABALLAPURA-560097.

5.   THE TAHSILDAR
     NELAMANGALA TALUK
     NELAMANGALA -560035.

6.   SHRI. ARIF AHMED
     S/O SRI. M.A. JABBAR
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
     R/O NO.30, IST CROSS
     MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU-560072.

7.   SRI. MOHAMMED SADULLA
     S/O LATE SHRI. ABDUL LATHEEF
     AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS.

8.   SRI. MOHAMMED MUJIBULLA
     S/O LATE SRI. ABDUL LATHEEF
     AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS.

9.   MOHAMMED AZMATULLA
     S/O LATE SRI. ABDUL LATHEEF
     AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.

     NO.7 TO 9 ARE
     R/AT CHIKKA BANAVARA MAIN ROAD
     HESSARAGHATTA HOBLI
     BENGALURU NORTH TALUK-560091.

10. SRI. CHANDRU H. MATTA
    S/O SRI. KRISH DASA MATTA
    AGED MAJOR
    R/O NO.31, SNS PLAZA
    II FLOOR, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD
    BENGALURU-560001.
                               3



11. SMT. GEETHA
    W/O SRI. CHANDRU H. MATTA
    S/O SRI. KRISH DASA MATTA
    AGED MAJOR, R/O NO.31
    SNS PLAZA, II FLOOR
    KUMARA KRUPA ROAD
    BENGALURU-560001.

12. SRI. K.M. ANANTHA KUMAR
    S/O MYTHRE RAJU
    AGED MAJOR, R/O NO.424
    10 CROSS, 18TH MAIN
    J P NAGAR, II STAGE
    BENGALURU-560039.

13. SHRI. RANGASWAMY
    S/O SRI. SHAMANNA
    AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
    OPP: GOVT. HOSPITAL
    DEALER IN FERTILIZER
    THYAMAGONDLU VILLAGE & HOBLI
    NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DIST-560034..

14. SRI. VARADANARAYANA
    S/O SRI. ANNEYAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
    R/AT. BASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE
    KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DIST-560034.

                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. B.K. SAMPATH KUMAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR
    MR. SHANMUKAPPA, ADV., FOR C/R1
  MRS. VANI H, AGA FOR R2 TO R5)
                            ---
      THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE PASSED IN W.P. NO.5928/2021, DATED
07.10.2021.   PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS THIS HON BLE
COURT DEEMED APPROPRIATE.

     THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
                                 4




                         JUDGMENT

This intra court appeal arises out of an order

dated 07.10.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge,

by which writ petition preferred by respondent No.1

(hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner' for short) has

been disposed of. In order to appreciate the grievance

of the appellant, few facts need mention, which are

stated infra.

2. The appellant who was arrayed as

respondent No.5 in the writ petition (hereinafter

referred to as 'the appellant' for short) along with her

husband purchased lands by registered sale deed

dated 25.08.1986 bearing Sy.No.8/1 and Sy.No.9

measuring 1 acre and 14 guntas and 7 acres and 27

guntas respectively at Bommanahalli Village,

Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore. The Tahsildar by an

order dated 25.08.1986 mutated the name of the

appellant in revenue records.

3. The appellant entered into an agreement for

sale of aforesaid land on 04.01.1993 with one Rakesh

Kumar. However, the same was rescinded vide

cancellation deed dated 03.04.1993. The appellant

and her husband had executed an irrevocable General

Power of Attorney in favour of one Arif Mohammed on

03.04.1993 authorizing him to deal with the lands in

question including the power to alienate the same. On

the basis of the aforesaid General Power of Attorney,

three sale deeds dated 07.09.1994, 08.09.1994 and

12.09.1994 were executed by respondent No.6 in

favour of one Mohammed Mujibulla, respondent No.8

in respect of land measuring 3 acres and 33 guntas.

Another three sale deeds dated 07.09.1994,

08.09.1994 and 12.09.1994 were executed by

respondent No.6 in favour of one Mohammed

Sadaulla, respondent No.7 in respect of land

measuring 2 acres and 25 guntas. Similarly, the

remaining land was sold by respondent No.6 in favour

of one Mohammed Azmathulla, respondent No.5.

4. A proceeding under Section 83 of the

Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the Act' for short) was initiated against

the appellant on the ground that land was held in

violation of Section 79A and 79B of the Act and the

same was forfeited by an order dated 21.01.1997

passed by Sub Division Officer viz., the competent

authority under the Act. The said order was

challenged in an appeal before the Karnataka

Appellate Tribunal, which was allowed and order

dated 31.08.1998 and the matter was remitted to the

competent authority for reconsideration. In

compliance of order of remand, the Tahsildar

conducted an enquiry and dropped the proceedings by

an order dated 16.03.2020 under Section 83 of the

Act and held that there is no violation of Section 79 of

the Act.

5. The respondents 7, 8 and 9 who had

purchased the lands vide registered sale deed made

applications for mutation of their names, which were

allowed and mutation entries were effected in their

names. The aforesaid respondents thereafter through

a General Power of Attorney viz., Chandru K Mutta,

Respondent No.10 executed registered sale deeds

dated 05.08.2006 in favour of respondent Nos.11 and

12. The aforesaid respondents sold the lands vide

registered sale deed dated 10.11.2006 in favour of

respondent Nos.13 and 14 whose names were entered

in the revenue records.

6. The respondent Nos.13 and 14 sold the

lands in question vide registered sale deed dated

25.10.2013 to the petitioner who submitted an

application to the Tahsildar for mutation of his name

in the revenue records. The appellant contested the

aforesaid application for mutation on the ground that

she is the owner of land in question by virtue of order

dated 31.08.1998 passed by Karnataka Appellate

Tribunal, by which the order of forfeiture of the land

in question was quashed by the State Government.

7. The name of the appellant was mutated in

the revenue records on the basis of order dated

31.08.1998. The respondent Nos.7 to 9 and the

petitioner have also filed another civil suit namely

O.S. No.617/2009 seeking the relief of declaration of

title. The appellant also filed seeking the relief of

declaration of title in respect of land in question

namely O.S. No.619/2014 which is pending.

8. The appellant sought cancellation of

revenue entries made in favour of the petitioner on the

ground that she had no knowledge about the revenue

entries made in favour of various persons and neither

she nor her husband had ever sold or authorized any

person to sell the land in question. It was also

averred that she is still in possession of the land in

question. The Assistant Commissioner by an order

dated 18.08.2017 allowed the application of the

appellant and cancelled the revenue entry made in

favour of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the

above said order in a revision before the Deputy

Commissioner who by an order dated 09.07.2019,

dismissed the revision and affirmed the order passed

by the Assistant Commissioner.

9. Thereupon, the petitioner filed a writ

petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dated

07.10.2021 inter alia held that Section 129(2) of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter

referred to as '1964 Act' for short) does not

contemplate notice to transferor and contemplates

notice only to person whose names appears in

revenue records apart from transferor. It was further

held that the proceedings of forfeiture initiated in

respect of the land in question has been dropped. It

was further held that respondent No.5 cannot sell the

property in question and subsequent contend that

transfer was void on account of an order of forfeiture.

The Assistant Commissioner could not have passed

orders dated 18.03.2007 and 09.07.2019 on the

ground that the Sale Deeds executed during the

period in which the order of forfeiture was in existence

is void, as the same has been dropped. It was also

held that the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy

Commissioner have no power to decide on the validity

of any subsequent sale transaction. The order dated

09.07.2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner was

set aside and the Tahsildar was directed to effect the

mutation and the revenue entries in favour of the

petitioner within 30 days. Accordingly, the writ

petition was disposed of. In the aforesaid factual

background, this appeal has been filed.

10. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant

submitted that when any mutation entry is proposed,

objection can be filed either orally or in writing to the

prescribed Officer under Section 129(3) of the 1964

Act and under Section 129(4), the same are required

to be entered in the Register of disputed cases and

has to be enquired into and disposed of in the manner

prescribed under the Rules. It is further submitted

that, the objection preferred by the appellant is

required to be disposed of by affording an opportunity

of hearing. In support of the aforesaid submission,

reliance has been placed on the decision of the Single

Judge of this Court in AMMOJI & ORS v. THE

SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE

SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE & ORS - 2014

SCC Online Kar 12683.

11. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel

for the petitioner submitted that appellant had raised

a dispute and an order was passed on 11.10.2006 by

the Assistant Commissioner by which names of

respondent Nos.11 and 12 was directed to be entered

in the revenue records. The aforesaid order was

affirmed in appeal by the Deputy Commissioner by an

order dated 07.05.2007 and the aforesaid orders have

attained finality. It is further submitted that the

orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the

Deputy Commissioner are in violation of the law laid

down by the full bench of this Court in JAYAMMA &

ORS v. STATE OF KARNATAKA - ILR 2020 KAR

1449. It is also pointed out that the revenue records

have been mutated in favour of the petitioner in

compliance of the order passed in the writ petition.

12. We have considered the rival submissions

and perused the record. Section 129 of the 1964 Act

deals with registration of mutations and register of

disputed cases. The relevant extract of Section 129

reads as under:

"(1) A record or rights shall be prepared in the prescribed manner in respect of every village and such record shall include the following particulars:

(a) the names of persons who are holders, occupants, owners, mortgagees, landlords or tenants of the land or assignees of the rent or revenue thereof;

(b) the nature and extent of the respective interest of such persons and the conditions or liabilities (if any) attaching thereto;

(c) the rent of revenue (if any) payable by or to any of such persons; and

(d) such other particulars as may be prescribed.

(2) The record of rights shall be maintained by such officers in such areas as may be prescribed and different officers may be prescribed for different areas.

(3) When the preparation of the record of rights referred to in sub-section (1) is completed in respect of any village, the fact of such completion shall be notified in the official Gazette and in such manner as may be prescribed.

(4) The objections entered in the Register of Disputed Cases and such other objections as may be made during the enquiry shall be enquired into and disposed of by such officer and in such manner as may be prescribed. Orders disposing of such objections shall be recorded in the Register of Mutations by such officer."

13. From perusal of Section 129(3) and (4), it is

evident that when a mutation entry is proposed,

objection can be filed either orally or in writing to the

prescribed Officer and the objections are required to

be entered in the Register of disputed cases. The

objections are required to be enquired into and

disposed of, in the manner as may be prescribed. The

manner of holding an enquiry and adjudication of

objection is prescribed under the Karnataka Land

Revenue Rules, 1966. Rule 66 provide that objection,

if any to the proposed entries can be preferred in the

manner provided therein.

14. Rule 67 provides that objections, if any, is

received, it is required to be entered in the Register of

disputed cases maintained in Form VIII and the same

shall be disposed of in accordance with Rule 67(2).

Rule 67(2) mandates that objection made during the

enquiry shall be disposed of in the manner specified

in Rules 43 and 68. Rule 43 requires that in every

case entered in the register of disputed cases, shall be

enquired into and decided by the concerned Officer on

an appointed day for which notice shall be given to

the parties concerned.

15. Admittedly, in the instant case, there is a

dispute with regard to mutation in the revenue

records. The claim for the mutation in the revenue

records has to be adjudicated in accordance with the

Act and the Rules which provide for a notice to be

given to the parties concerned. The appellant is a

person who has preferred an objection to the mutation

entries sought to be made in favour of the petitioner.

Therefore, her objection is required to be adjudicated

in accordance with the manner prescribed under the

Act and the Rules.

16. For the aforementioned reasons, the

direction contained in para 9.4 of the order passed by

the learned Single Judge is modified. The order of

mutation passed in pursuance of the direction issued

by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The

Assistant Commissioner is directed to decide the issue

afresh with regard to mutation of revenue entries in

respect of the land in question after affording an

opportunity of hearing to the appellant and the

petitioner within a period of two months from today.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any

opinion with regard to claim of the title of the parties

in respect of land in question. To the aforesaid extent,

the order passed by the learned Single Judge is

modified.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

SS