Karnataka High Court
Smt M.R. Padma vs State Of Karnataka on 29 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29674
WP No. 8319 of 2024
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. 8319 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. M.R. PADMA
W/O LATE A. MALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,
2. SRI. M. NARAYANA,
S/O A. MALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
3. SMT. SHOBHA,
D/O LATE A. MALAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
4. SRI. BALACHANDRA M,
Digitally S/O LATE A. MALAIAH,
signed by AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,
YAMUNA K L
PETITIONERS ARE R/AT NO.392,
Location: High
Court of 1ST CROSS, VIDYANAGARA,
Karnataka OPP. TERISSION COLLEGE, NAZARBAD,
MYSORE DISTRICT - 570 010.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MANJESH H.M, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEVELOPMENT,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29674
WP No. 8319 of 2024
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
MYSORE - 570 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
MYSORE SUB DIVISION,
MYSORE - 570 001.
4. THE THASILDAR
TALUK OFFICE,
MYSORE TALUK,
MYSORE - 570 001.
5. SRI. BYBILO POVAIAH,
SO LATE POVAIAH,
AGED MAJOR,
R/AT NO.541/B, KANTOORU ROAD,
GOKULAM 3RD STAGE,
MYSORE - 570 002.
6. SRI. K.C. NAVEEN,
S/O LATE CHANGAPPA, MAJOR,
R/AT NO.905, H.R.B.R LAYOUT,
3RD B CROSS, 1ST STAGE,
BANASAWADI, BANGALORE - 560 043.
7. SRI. P.K. MONNAPPA,
S/O LATE P.K. SUBBAIAH, MAJOR,
R/AT NO.541/B, KANTOOR ROAD,
GOKULAM, 3RD STAGE,
MYSORE - 570 002.
8. SRI. N.U. APPAIAH,
S/O LATE N. UTTAIAH, MAJOR,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29674
WP No. 8319 of 2024
R/AT NO.12, SANNIDHI,
KANTOOR ROAD,
GOKULAM 3RD STAGE,
MYSORE - 570 002.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P. RADHA, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) DECLARE THAT
THE ORDER DATED 09/12/2020 AND PASSED BY 3RD IN RA
NO. 507/2017, R.A. 541/2018 AND 543/2018 WHICH IS
PRODUCED ALONG WITH THIS MEMORANDUM OF WRIT
PETITION AT ANNEXURE-F AND THE ORDER DATED
05/12/2023 AND PASSED BY R2 IN RP NO. 07/2021, WHICH IS
PRODUCED ALONG WITH THIS MEMORANDUM OF WP AT
ANNEXURE-G, QUASH THE SAME AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are assailing the orders passed by
respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner and respondent
No.2/Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure-F and G.
2. The petitioners are asserting that the petition
properties are their ancestral properties, originally granted
NC: 2024:KHC:29674
to their father, namely, late.A.Malaiah. The petitioners are
disputing the GPA executed by their father, A.Malaiah and
consequent registered dated deeds, which are re-produced
by respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner in his order
vide Annexure-F. Respondent No.3/Assistant
Commissioner, having taken cognizance of the registered
sale deeds, has allowed the appeal and has directed the
jurisdictional Tahsildar to effect changes in the revenue
records in terms of registered sale deeds. While allowing
the appeal filed by the transferees, the petitioners herein
are relegated to approach the civil court. This order is
confirmed by respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner vide
Annexure-G.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned AGA for the State.
4. The petitioners are disputing the GPA executed
by the father, A.Malaiah. The petitioners contend that their
father never executed GPA and therefore contend that
consequent sale deeds will not convey title to the
NC: 2024:KHC:29674
transferees. The petitioners also contend that
authorisation reflected in GPA clearly demonstrates that
there was no authorization to sell the petition land. The
petitioner further contended that the appeals were filed
after inordinate delay and that the same is not properly
explained and therefore, the petitioners contend that
respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioners erred in
entertaining the appeals filed under Section 136(2) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'Act').
5. It is a trite law that, while exercising the powers
under the provisions of the Act, the revenue authorities
have no jurisdiction to decide the right and title of the
parties in respect of immovable properties. However,
Section 128 of the Act cast a mandatory duty on the
revenue authorities to effect mutations aligning with the
rights created under the registered sale deeds. Therefore,
revenue authorities under Section 128 of the Act are under
bounden duty to mutate entries in the revenue records on
NC: 2024:KHC:29674
the basis of the acquisition of rights as contemplated
under the provisions of Section 128 of the Act.
6. If petitioners are disputing the transaction, they
have to seek redressal of their grievances by instituting a
proper suit before the competent civil court. Even if the
alienation is disputed by the petitioners, the transferee
acquires a voidable title and unless the sale deeds under
dispute are challenged in the manner known to law, the
revenue authorities have no choice but to effect mutations
strictly adhering to the transfer of immovable properties
reflected in registered sale deeds. Respondent
No.3/Assistant Commissioner and respondent No.2/Deputy
Commissioner have rightly relegated petitioners to seek
redressal of their grievances before the competent civil
court in the light of judgment rendered by this Court in the
case of Smt. Jayamma and others vs. The State of
Karnataka reported in ILR 2020 KAR 1449. Therefore,
delay if any in preferring an appeal by the transferees is of
no consequence. If there are registered sale deeds in
NC: 2024:KHC:29674
favour of the transferees, the authorities are bound to
effect changes in the revenue records. It is equally trite
law that entries in the revenue records are not title
documents. The orders passed by the authorities in
relegating the petitioners to approach civil court does not
suffer from any infirmities.
Reserving liberty to the petitioners, the writ petition
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
HDK
CT: BHK
