MRS K SULOCHANA W/O LATE RAMAYYA AND SMT. JAYANTHI W/O SADASHIVA Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT MANGALORE AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioners claim to be legal heirs of one Putta S/o. Aitha, in whose favour they contend had been granted an extent of 68 cents of land in Sy. No. 60/1L situated at Kodailbail Village of Mangalore Taluk, as per grant order dated 21.10.1931 in D.R. No. 132/41. It is the version of the petitioners that while writ petitioners alone are the legal heirs of the said grantee his sister Smt. Leela W/o. Aitha being daughter -in -law and daughter of sister of the grantee, as the grantee had died bachelor and his sister alone was a legal heir to the grantee, but nevertheless the respondent Nos.5 and 6 claiming to be the legal heirs of such a grantee having been embarked upon a transaction of sale in favour of 4th respondent for transfer of an extent of 35 cents of land in this granted land by impersonating as legal heirs of the original grantee and a joint application seeking permission for the transaction though was rejected by the Asst. Commissioner as per his order dated 16.10.1984, but in further appeal, being reversed and the Deputy Commissioner - the 1st respondent having granted such permission and based on such transfer, revenue entries having come to be mutated recently in M.R. No. 6/2009 -2010 in favour of 4th respondent, whereas till that time the revenue entries stood in the name of the petitioners and petitioners being ignorant of these developments, but having come to know of the change of entries and on such premise have approached this Court praying for the following relief : Quashing the order dated 28.06.1988 in No. ADIS SC ST PTL 117/84 -85 passed by the first respondent and the endorsement No. EDIS. PTCL. D.R. 66/2009 -10 dated 9.06.2010 which is at Annexures -A and B further direct the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and to hold an enquiry and hear the petitioners, in the interest of justice and equity.Petition had been admitted on 30.5.2011 by issue of rule and emergent notice had been issued to the respondents.

(2.) SRI R. Omkumar, learned AGA was directed to take notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and the matter is listed today before the Court for effecting service in respect of respondent Nos.4 to 6. After the petition was admitted matter is listed today before the Court for such purpose.

(3.) HOWEVER . Mr. Omkumar, learned AGA points out that it is proper for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court, if the petitioners are aggrieved by the change of entries in the revenue records and also as the proceedings are not under the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Properties) Act, 1978. (for short 'the Act') but a permission though is a requirement in terms of sub -section (2) of Section 4 of the Act, nevertheless being one granted under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it is appropriate for the petitioners to approach the Civil Court and in such a situation Section 5(2) of the Act may not act as a bar for necessary relief which the petitioners can seek before the Civil Court, particularly, for declaration if any in the context of sale deed executed by respondent Nos.5 and 6 in favour of 4th respondent a fortiori so, when the petitioners are alleging that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are impersonated and have played fraud on the petitioners.