A.M. SHARATH CHANDRA S/O. SRI A.C. MUNIVENKATEGOWDA, SRI T.C. PHANI MAHESH S/O. SRI ASHWATHANARAYAN AND SRI T.C. ASHOK S/O. SRI T.C. ASHWATHANARAYAN REP. BY HIS PA HOLDER SRI T.C. PHANI MAHESH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF LAND REVENUE RE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MANIPULATION of revenue officials for getting entries in the revenue records mutated in the name of one or the other person, whether by claiming title under a sale deed executed by a person who did not himself have any entries in the revenue records or claiming as legal heir of ancestor in whose name entry stood at some point of time in the remote past and not recently or till the date when change is sought for are all manipulative exercises indulged in by persons claiming property rights only before the revenue authorities, but not mustering courage to approach the proper forum for determination of such rights which is only a civil court. It is more so when the subject land happens to be in the vicinity of highly urbanized area and land value shoots up, purchasers - persons claiming to have acquired title and interest under a subsequent transaction, find it easy to manipulate the revenue authorities for getting entries in the revenue records rather than treading on the right royal path of approaching civil court for determination of their rights.

(2.) THE present writ petitions appear to be not any better wherein Petitioners are seeking for quashing the orders passed by the Special Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk [copy at Annexure -U].

(3.) SUBMISSION of Sri. Poovayya, learned Counsel for the Petitioners is that while Petitioners' name had been mutated in the revenue records as per sale transactions registered in the year 2001 said to have been executed by one Appaiah - person in whose favour it is claimed the Special Tahsildar had re -granted such extent of land under two re -grant orders one of the year 1997 in an extent of 1 acre 10 guntas [copy at Annexure -Al and another of the year 2002 in an extent of 10 guntas in Sy. No. 20/5 of Roopena Agrahara, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk and therefore the proceedings that were initiated by the Petitioners and culminating in the orders passed by the Tahsildar for mutating the revenue entry from the name of one Srinivasrao - erstwhile land owner and later Appaiah as a person in whose favour land had been re -granted and on such strength in favour of the present writ Petitioners, and on the strength of the sale deeds having some semblance of continuity and justification whereas the seventh Respondent, on the other hand, had manipulated the revenue authorities, Tahsildar for getting his name mutated in the revenue records as per order at Annexure -U by the Special Tahsildar which has been left undisturbed is not an order that is justifiable in law nor based on any material on record, particularly, as seventh Respondent had only claimed as a legal heir of one Lingappa who it is claimed had purchased the subject land and on certain other premise was clearly erroneous and therefore the order at Annexure -U deserves to be quashed.