CAFFEINE HOLIDAYS INDIA PVT. LTD. BY ITS DIRECTORS, OM KUMAR G., S/O LATE M. CHANDRASHEKAR AND SHANKAR K.S., S/O LATE SRI SHIVARUDRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS have sought for quashing the order of the Tahsildar, Chikmagalur in MR 10/2007 -08 dated 14.11.2007 - annexure B; order of the Assistant Commissioner, Chikmagalur dated 11.6.2008 - annexure C and the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur in Revision 20/2008 -09 on 2.12.2008 - annexure D.

(2.) PETITIONER is a Company owing about 9.29 acres (plantation/coffee land) in Sy. No. 18 situate in Inam Dattatreya Peeta Village, Chikmagalur Taluk, Jagara Hobli, purchased as per the schedule under the registered sale deed dated 21.9.2007 - annexure A for valuable consideration of Rs. 16 lakhs. After registration, an application was made for change of mutation entries in the joint name of the Petitioners. The Tahsildar, Chikmagalur by order dated 14.11.2007 rejected the claim for change of mutation against which in the appeal preferred before the Assistant Commissioner as per Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in RA 92/2007 -08, the order of the Tahsildar rejecting the application came to be confirmed as at annexure C. Thereafter, revision was preferred under Section 136(3) of the Act to the Deputy Commissioner, who also in turn, dismissed the revision on 2.12.2008 - annexure D. Hence, this petition.

(3.) ACCORDING to the Petitioners counsel, without application of mind the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner rejected the claim of the Petitioners who, by virtue of the registered sale deed, are in lawful possession having purchased the same from the original kathedar - Challappa. The revenue authorities ought to have made entries in the mutation register. The Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction to decide the question of title of the Petitioners having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Non entering of the names of the Petitioners has deprived their right and there is no dispute regarding title to the property belonging to the Petitioners.