V. JAYARAM Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the Order dated 18.06.2019 passed by the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.102/2018, vide Annexure-A, setting aside the Order dated 12.02.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner and directing the 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, Nelamangala, to restore the entries in the name of the 4th respondent herein.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that, his grand father, late Hanumaiah, originally owned land bearing Sy.No.2/2 totally measuring 2 acres 24 guntas, situated at Narasipalya village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, apart from other properties and an extent of 34 guntas was allotted to Chikkahanumaiah, the third son of late Hanumaiah. The revenue records were entered in the name of Chikkahanumaiah. After death of Chikkahanumaiah, his wife, Smt.Champaka acquired the said property by way of succession. The petitioner's father-Veerahanumaiah and his first son Hanumantharayappa were jointly enjoying remaining extent of 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.2/2. Later, with an understanding between Hanumantaiah, S/o Hanumaiah and Veerahanumanthaiah, wherein Hanumanthaiah, gave up his right, title and interest in the said Sy.No.2/2 in the entire extent of 1 acre 30 guntas, after taking alternative land as his share in Sy. No.153 of Arashinakunte village. In pursuance to the settlement and exchange between Veerahanumaiah and Hanumanthaiah, the revenue records in respect of 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.2/2 was entered in the name of Veerhanumaiah and after the demise of the said Veerahanumaiah, the said 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No.2/2 devolved on to Hanumantharayappa who is brother of the petitioner and to the petitioner. Since the petitioner and his brother had not entered into any partition or arrangement, the revenue records with respect to the entire extent of 1 acre 30 guntas in Sy.No. 2/2 was entered in the name of the petitioner's brother Hanumantharayappa in the year 1995-96.

(3.) It is further case of the petitioner that, petitioner and his brother-Hanumantharayappa entered into an oral agreement wherein it was agreed and understood that, the petitioner shall retain an extent of 1 acre and said Hanumantharayappa shall take an extent of 30 guntas in the said Sy.No.2/2. Both were in enjoyment of their respective properties. When things stood thus, the 4th respondent approached the 3rd respondent to enter his name in the mutation register in respect of the said property, on the basis of the forged sale deed dated 18.04.2001 said to have been executed by Hanumantharayappa, who is the brother of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent-Tahsildar, based on the report of the Revenue Inspector, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru Rural District, by the Order dated 04.02.2002, erroneously proceeded to enter the name of the 4th respondent in respect of the said property, without giving notice or an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, petitioner approached the 2nd respondent-Assistant Commissioner, who, after hearing both the parties, by the Order dated 12.02.2018, set- aside the Order passed by the Tahsildar and the mutation entry and in M.R.No.3/2001-02 in respect of land measuring 1 acre in Sy.No.2/2 situated at Narasapura village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The 4th respondent herein was directed to establish his right over the land in question before the competent Civil Court.