Karnataka High Court
Suresh G Nanwani vs State Of Karnataka on 28 February, 2025
1
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO.2913 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1 . SURESH G. NANWANI
S/O LATE. GOPALDAS NANWANI
AGED 68 YEARS
HUNSAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA 2 HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE-562 157.
REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA HOLDER
ANOOP VANJANI
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS REVENUE DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
DR. BR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560 001.
2
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA-560 001.
4. THE TAHSILDAR OFFICE
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560 064.
5. LAKSHMINARAYANA SHETTY
S/O LATE VENKATARAMANA SHETTY
AGED 76 YEARS
RESIDING AT HUNSAMARANAHALLI VILLAGE
JALA 2 HOBLI, YELAHANKA TALUK
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
BANGALORE - 562 157.
6. SRI. SANTHOSH RAJ URS. B.Y
S/O SAROJA. R
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
R/AT NO.318, ARASU MANSION
SECOND FLOOR, 12TH A MAIN ROAD
6TH BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 010.
7. SMT. PRARTHANA. A.G
D/O A.S. GURUSWAMY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT NO.690/91
BB GARDEN ROAD
AGRAHARA, MYSURU-570 004.
8. SRI. SAINATH NAGURE
S/O ANNEPPA NAGURE
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT FLAT NO. FALGUNI 601
OLETY LANDMARK APARTMENT
NO.23, 3RD CROSS
2ND MAIN, SHANKUMUTT
3
VAIYALIKAVAL LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 086.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. B.R.PRASANNA, ADVOCATE FOR C/R5;
SRI. B.Y.KIRAN, ADVOCATE FOR C/R7;
SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. MANU .K, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED JANUARY 24, 2024, PASSED BY R-2
IN REVISION PETITION NO.478/2024 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.02.2025, THIS DAY ORDER WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
C.A.V ORDER
Petitioner is assailing the order passed by respondent
No.2 as per Annexure-A. Consequently, a mandamus is
sought to restore M.R.No.H4/2021-22 thereby upholding
petitioner's ownership and possession over 30 guntas of
land in Sy.No.155/1.
2. The subject matter of this petition is 30 guntas
of land in Sy.No.155/1 situated at Hunasamaranahalli, Jala-
2 Hobli, Yelahanka Taluk. The petitioner asserts title over
the disputed property based on grant order dated
06.10.1962 issued in favour or petitioner's predecessor in
title Jayaramaiah. Petitioner claims that though
Jayaramaiah applied for grant of occupancy rights to an
extent of 4 acres 10 guntas, the entire extent measuring 5
acres 4 guntas was reflected in the revenue records thereby
grantee was in exclusive possession of 5 acres 4 guntas and
asserted absolute title and the subsequent alienations also
indicate that the entire extent measuring 5 acres 4 guntas
was the subject matter of conveyance and after several
transfers, this disputed property is now gifted to petitioner
vide registered sale deed dated 03.07.2021 and
accordingly, ownership is recorded pursuant to certification
of M.R.No.H4/2021-22. Petitioner therefore, feeling
aggrieved by the disputed mutation order pursuant to order
passed by the respondent No.3/Assistant Commissioner and
confirmed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner is
before this Court.
3. Respondent Nos.6 to 8 have filed statement of
objections and have tried to counter the petitioner's claim.
While refuting the averments made in the petition, the
respondents have averred that land bearing Sy.No.155
stood vested with the State pursuant to Inams Abolition
Act, 1955. Referring to moola tippanni prepared in respect
of Sy.No.155 on 14.12.1956, respondents claim that this
land was subjected to phodi and the land accordingly stood
divided into two parts i.e., Sy.Nos.155/1 and 155/2.
Accordingly, hissa survey tippani was drawn up on
09.01.1961.
4. Respondents further claim that on 20.06.1960
one Appashetty S/o Venkataramappa filed application
seeking grant of occupancy rights in respect of 30 guntas in
Sy.No.155/1. The said application was registered and on
enquiry, Appashetty was conferred occupancy rights to an
extent of 30 guntas in Sy.No.155/1 by the Special Deputy
Commissioner for abolition of Inams vide order dated
31.07.1962. Respondents therefore contend that pursuant
to grant, entry was registered which is evidenced at
Annexure-R5. The private respondents further specifically
contend that the petitioner's predecessor in title namely
Jayaramaiah had filed an application seeking occupancy
rights to an extent of 4 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.155/1 and
the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams vide order
dated 06.10.1962 has conferred occupancy rights only to an
extent of 4 acres 10 guntas.
5. The respondents are also placing reliance on the
statement of Jayaramaiah before the Special Tahsildar
acknowledging that his claim was only to an extent of 4
acres 10 guntas. Respondents therefore contend that
petitioner who is tracing title through Jayaramaiah cannot
assert title in excess of 4 acres 10 guntas. Reliance is
placed on the endorsement issued by the revenue officials
which are annexed at Annexures - R-10 and R-11. The
respondents claim that after demise of respondent No.5's
father and since there was interference by the petitioner
over 30 guntas of land, respondent No.5 verified the
revenue records and found that M.R.No.H4/2021-22 is
certified fraudulently thereby mutating petitioner's name to
the entire extent measuring 5 acres 4 guntas contrary to
grant obtained by Appashetty to an extent of 30 guntas.
6. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner has raised two key contentions while challenging
the orders passed by respondent No.3/Assistant
Commissioner and respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner.
Firstly, he argues that the private respondents were not
entitled to maintain an appeal under Section 136(2) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Instead, they ought to have
approached respondent No.4/Tahsildar for a change of
katha under Section 128. Secondly, he contends that there
is no provision for condonation of delay under Section 136.
Referring to the language of Section 136, he points out that
it explicitly states, "the provisions of Chapter V are not
applicable," thereby excluding the applicability of Section
51, which otherwise allows an aggrieved party to seek
condonation of delay. In any event, he submits that the
delay has been condoned by respondent No.3/Assistant
Commissioner without assigning proper reasons, rendering
the order unsustainable. Additionally, he asserts that the
respondents' names could not have been mutated based on
a 1962 grant. Learned Senior Counsel further brings to the
Court's attention that the petitioner has already instituted a
comprehensive suit and that the principles laid down by the
Full Bench in Smt. Jayamma vs. State of Karnataka1 are
squarely applicable to the present case. Relying on the Full
Bench judgment, he contends that revenue authorities,
particularly under Section 136(2), should not entertain stale
claims.
ILR 2020 Kar 1449
7. Challenging the reasoning adopted by the
Deputy Commissioner, learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the Deputy Commissioner erred in directing
the petitioner to pursue his remedies in the pending suit.
He asserts that an appeal under Section 136(2) is
maintainable only against an order passed under Section
129(4) or 129(6). Further, he argues that the provisions
governing limitation under Section 51 do not apply to
proceedings under Section 136. On this basis, he contends
that the Assistant Commissioner lacked the jurisdiction to
condone the delay.
8. Conversely, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for respondent Nos.6 to 8 refutes the petitioner's claim. He
argues that the issue of limitation was never raised during
the revision proceedings under Section 136(3). Moreover,
he points out that the petitioner did not file any objections
to the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
before the Assistant Commissioner. Consequently, having
waived his defense and having failed to challenge the
application at the relevant stage, the petitioner is now
estopped from raising these grounds under Article 227.
Referring to paragraph 5 of the plaint in O.S.No.
1293/2024, he emphasizes that the petitioner has
acknowledged the grant made in favour of the private
respondents' ancestor. Given that the original grantee,
Jayaramaiah, acquired rights over only 4 acres and 10
guntas through the said grant, any alienation beyond this
extent is legally unsustainable. Therefore, he contends that
the petitioner's claim to the excess land is defective and
cannot be adjudicated in mutation proceedings. In light of
this, he argues that the Deputy Commissioner rightly
directed the petitioner to establish his rights in the pending
suit.
9. Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the private
respondent Nos.6 to 8 and learned AGA.
10. On deeper examination of the records, it is
clearly evident that one Jayaramaiah S/o Munivenkatappa
filed application seeking grant of occupancy rights to an
extent of 4 acres 10 guntas in Sy.No.155/1. The petitioner
is tracing title through the said Jayaramaiah. Similarly, one
Appashetty S/o Venkataramappa also filed an application
seeking grant of occupancy rights to an extent of 30 guntas
in Sy.No.155/1.
11. On examining the grant certificate evidenced at
Annexure-R5 and R10, it is clearly evident that Jayaramaiah
was granted only 4 acres 10 guntas, while Appashetty was
granted 30 guntas on the same day i.e., 20.06.1960.
Annexure-R8 would clinch the claim of petitioner in excess
of 4 acres 10 guntas which is an affidavit. Therefore, this
Court before proceeds further deems it fit to cull out
Annexure-R8.
"Deposition : Jayaramaiah
Father's name : Munivenkatappa
Age : 28 years
Caste : Vakkaligar
Occupation : Agriculture
Residence : Kodagalahalli
Sy.No. Ext Asst.
125/1 2-20 5-00
4-10 J 155/1 4-10 8-8-0
J 52/2 0-18 (0-12-0) 2-4-0
M 60 0-04
M 65 0-12
M 91 0-06
M 59 0-04
Sy.No.125/1 ೇ ಜ ೕನು P.R.S.O ೆ ನನ ೆಸ ನ ಾ ೆ
ಇರು ೆ. ಸ.ನಂ.155 ೇ ಜಂ ಾ ೆಯ ದು ಅದರ 4-10 ಗುಂ!ೆ ಜ ೕನು
ಅನುಭವದ ರು ೆ. 52/2 ೇ ಜ ೕನು $ೈಯಪ' ೆಂಪಯ(ನ ಜಂ ಾ ೆಯ ದು
ನನ)ೆ 0-6 ಗುಂ!ೆ ಜ ೕನು ಇರು ೆ. ೆಂಪಯ( ನನ *ಕ ಪ' ಾಗ$ೇಕು ಆತ.ಂದ
ನನ)ೆ ಬಂ0ರು ೆ. ಈ ಜ ೕನುಗ2)ೆ ಾನು ಅ3ಾ4ದ ನನ
ಅನುಭವದ ದು ೊಂ6ರು ೆ. Sy.No.60, 65, 91, 59 ೇ ಜ ೕನುಗಳ8
9:ೕಮಠದ ೆಸ ನ ಾ ೆ4ದು ಾನು ಈ ಜ ೕನುಗಳನು =ಾಗುವ2 7-8
ವಷ?ಗ2ಮದ @ಾಡುBCೇ ೆ. ಇದ ೆ ಎನೂ Cಾಖ3ೆಯೂ ಇF. ಇವGಗಳ ನನ ನು
=ಾಗುವ2Cಾರ ಾH ಮುಂದುವ ಸ$ೇ ಾH Iಾ:ಥ? ೆ."
12. This Court also deems it fit to cull out para 5 of
the plaint in O.S.No.1293/2024. This suit is instituted by
the petitioner. Para 5 reads as under:
"5. That in a different proceeding one Appashetty
was also shown to have been granted 0.30 guntas of land
in Sy.No.155/1, but he was not cultivating that land at any
time. He was found to be in possession and enjoyment of
0.19 guntas of land in Sy.No.157/3. Accordingly, it is
recorded so in correlation register and the revenue records
pertaining to the said 0.19 guntas were made over to his
name vide RR No.353. Later, the revenue records of Sy.No
157/3 were made over to the name of the said Appashetty
and the said Appashetty had sold his land in favour of one
Govindappa through a registered sale deed dated
28/07/1966 bearing document No. 1667/1966-67. This is
very clear from Karda and RR Right Hand Side entries
also."
13. In light of the affidavit extracted above, along
with the averments made in paragraph 5, this Court has
carefully examined the proceedings before the Special
Tahsildar of Inams Abolition concerning the grant of
occupancy rights in favour of Jayaramaiah for Sy.No.155/1,
measuring 4 acres and 10 guntas. These proceedings have
attained finality, as evidenced by the signed order sheet
available at Annexure-R-9. Furthermore, the grant orders
issued by the Special Deputy Commissioner, as reflected in
Annexure-B2 dated 01.05.1961, explicitly establish that
Jayaramaiah was granted occupancy rights over only 4
acres and 10 guntas. Additionally, in separate proceedings,
Appashetty was independently granted 30 guntas. The
grant of 30 guntas to Appashetty has been acknowledged in
the proceedings. The petitioner himself has admitted to this
fact in the comprehensive suit filed in O.S.No.1293/2024,
as detailed in paragraph 5 of the plaint.
14. Against this backdrop, this Court must now
address two key issues raised by the learned Senior
Counsel. The first contention advanced is that the private
respondents could not have maintained an appeal under
Section 136(2) and that their proper remedy lies before
respondent No.4/Tahsildar. However, this argument runs
contrary to the statutory mandate under Section 128.
Given the disputed mutation recorded in M.R.No.H4/2021-
22, the private respondents could not have approached
respondent No.4/Tahsildar under Section 128. The mutation
of the petitioner's name over the entire extent of 5 acres
and 4 guntas is inconsistent with the actual grant of
occupancy rights to Jayaramaiah.
15. Section 128 outlines the procedure for recording
rights in immovable property, as contemplated under its
provisions. However, the private respondents can seek
mutation of their names only if the impugned mutation is
set aside. Consequently, they were justified in approaching
the Assistant Commissioner and the appellate authority
under Section 136(2). Therefore, the argument that the
private respondents' remedy was limited to the Tahsildar is
untenable.
16. Whether provisions of Section 5 of
Limitation Act are applicable to Appeals filed under
Section 136(2) of KLR Act:
The second issue raised by the learned Senior Counsel
pertains to the Assistant Commissioner's jurisdiction to
condone the delay in light of the 1962 grant. Referring to
Section 136(2), the learned Senior Counsel highlights that
this provision begins with a non-obstante clause, explicitly
stating that the provisions of Chapter V shall not apply to
any decision or order under this chapter. Chapter V
prescribes appellate remedies against original orders, with
Section 51 specifically setting out the limitation period.
Moreover, Section 52 expressly stipulates that the
provisions of Sections 4, 5, and 12 of the Limitation Act
shall apply mutatis mutandis to all appeals under this Act.
Given this legal framework, it is relevant to extract Section
52, which provides as follows:
" 52. Application of the Limitation Act.
Save as otherwise provided in this Act, the
provisions of sections 4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act,
1963 (Central Act 36 of 1963) shall mutatis mutandis apply
to all appeals under this Act."
17. The non-obstante clause in Section 136(1)
merely states that the provisions of Chapter V shall not
apply to any decision or order passed under Chapter XIV.
This implies that orders passed under sub-sections (4) and
(6) of Section 129 are not appealable under Section 49 of
Chapter V. Instead, an effective appellate remedy for such
orders is expressly provided under Section 136(2).
18. Furthermore, Section 52, as extracted above,
explicitly states that the provisions of the Limitation Act
apply to all appeals under this Act. Therefore, the argument
advanced by the learned Senior Counsel that the
applicability of Sections 4 and 5 of the Limitation Act is
restricted solely to orders passed under Section 49 is
fundamentally misconceived. Additionally, this Court
considers it necessary to take cognizance of Rule 16 of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, which reads as
follows:
"16. Contents of appeal, etc :-
Every such appeal, petition applications shall
(a) be either typewritten or written in ink in clearly
legible hand;
(b) specify the name, fathers name and postal
address of the appellant or applicant and of the respondent
or opponent, as the case may be;
(c) contain a brief statement of the facts of the case;
(d) state the provisions of the substantive law under
which it is presented;
(e) clearly state the grounds of appeal, petition or
application and the relief claimed;
(f) if filed, after the expiry of the period of limitation,
state the reasons for the delay:
Provided that where the appellant, petitioner or
applicant wants the delay to be condoned, he shall file a
separate application along with an affidavit explaining the
circumstances relied upon, failing which the appeal, petition
or application shall be dismissed in limine. Every appeal,
petition or application shall be accompanied by a certified
copy of the order in respect of which the appeal, petition or
application has been made and also by as many true copies
of the appeal memo, petition or application as there are
respondents or opponents.
Provided further that every appeal, petition or
application made to the Tribunal shall be accompanied by
two true copies of such appeal, petition or application and
by one certified copy and two true copies of the order in
respect of which the appeal, petition or application has
been made in addition to as many true copies of such order
and appeal, petition or application as there are respondents
or opponents."
19. Rule 16(f) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules,
1966, explicitly provides that if an appeal is filed beyond
the prescribed period of limitation, an application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act is maintainable. However,
Rule 16 mandates that such an application must be filed
independently, and sufficient reasons for the delay must be
assigned. A plain and conjoint reading of Sections 51 and
52 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, along with
Rule 16, makes it evident that the provisions of the
Limitation Act are applicable to appeals filed under Section
136(2). This interpretation supports the view that an
aggrieved party has the right to seek condonation of delay
by filing an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act
when challenging an order passed under Section 129
through an appeal under Section 136(2). Consequently, the
argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel,
suggesting that the provisions of the Limitation Act,
particularly Sections 4 and 5, apply exclusively to orders
passed under Section 49, is misconceived. Such a
contention stands in direct contradiction to the statutory
provisions under Sections 51 and 52 read with Rule 16.
Therefore, this Court finds no merit in this argument and is
not inclined to accept the same.
20. Learned Senior Counsel has also contended that
the principles laid down in Jayamma (supra) are squarely
applicable to the present case. However, this Court is
unable to accept that contention. The petitioner's
predecessor-in-title, namely Jayaramaiah, was granted
occupancy rights only to an extent of 4 acres and 10
guntas, as per the order dated 06.10.1962. The petitioner,
relying on title deeds derived from previous purchasers, is
asserting ownership over land exceeding this extent. It is
well settled that any claim beyond the grant of occupancy
rights must be substantiated through proper legal
proceedings. Therefore, in accordance with the principles
laid down by the Full Bench in Jayamma, the burden lies
upon the petitioner to establish his title, right, and
possession over the excess land. This issue cannot be
adjudicated in mutation proceedings under Sections 128
and 129 but must be determined by a competent civil court.
Notably, the petitioner has already initiated such
proceedings by filing a comprehensive civil suit. Hence, the
order of the Assistant Commissioner, directing the
petitioner to substantiate his title claim through civil
litigation rather than mutation proceedings, is in strict
conformity with the statutory framework provided under
Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
1964.
21. Additionally, this Court deems it necessary to
examine the discretion exercised by the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner while
entertaining appeals and revisions under Section 136. A
party acquiring title through a registered sale deed cannot
be deprived of their rights merely because the revenue
authorities have failed to take cognizance of the document
and reflect the rightful owner's name in the Record of
Rights (RTC). The sale deed is a conclusive proof of
ownership and the failure of revenue authorities to update
records accordingly does not diminish the legal standing of
such transactions. It is also imperative to note that under
the existing legal framework, a mandatory duty is cast upon
the revenue authorities to incorporate changes in column 9
of RTC upon receiving intimation from the Sub-Registrar.
Therefore, inordinate delay in initiating mutation
proceedings should not be treated as an absolute bar,
especially when ownership is evidenced through legally
valid and registered documents.
22. In revenue proceedings concerning mutations
under Sections 128 and 129, excessive emphasis on
procedural delays is unwarranted. Once title is lawfully
acquired under a registered sale deed, such ownership
cannot be negated solely due to delays in updating revenue
records. This Court has consistently held that RTC entries
do not constitute title documents, and mere non-reflection
of a party's name in the revenue records does not divest
them of ownership rights. Hence, the Assistant
Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, while
exercising their discretion, must prioritize legally registered
documents over technical objections concerning delay.
Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner was justified in
condoning the delay in the present case, particularly in light
of the grant of 30 guntas by the Special Deputy
Commissioner under the Inams Abolition proceedings. The
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, as affirmed by
the Deputy Commissioner, is legally sound and does not
suffer from any jurisdictional or procedural infirmity.
23. Writ petition is devoid of merits and accordingly
stands dismissed.
Sd/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM)
JUDGE
CA
