KOTESHAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HAVERI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order passed by respondent No.1-Deputy Commissioner disposing of the revision petition filed by respondent No.4 herein under Sec. 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), wherein the operation of the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner has been stayed till the disposal of the suit filed by respondents No.5 to 7.

(2.) Petitioner purchased lands bearing Sy.No.138/1A+1B+2Bx3 measuring 2 acres 25 guntas and Sy.No.139/2 measuring 1 acre 15 guntas both situated at Karur village of Ranebennur Taluk through a registered sale deed dtd. 16/12/2005 from respondent No.4. The Tahsildar on 10/8/2006, mutated the name of the petitioner vide M.E.No.100 as contemplated under Sec. 129 of the Act. The mutation entry in favour of the petitioner was questioned by respondents No.4 to 7 herein before the Assistant Commissioner under Sec. 136(2) of the Act. The said appeal came to be dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.4 herein filed revision petition under Sec. 136(3) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner passed an order on 17/11/2011 staying operation of the mutation dtd. 10/8/2009 passed by respondent No.2 Assistant Commissioner. Taking exception to the same, this writ petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has acquired right, title and interest over the land in question by virtue of the registered sale deed dtd. 16/12/2005 executed by respondent No.4 in favour of the petitioner. Respondent No.2-Tahasildar taking into consideration the registered sale mutated the name of the petitioner in the revenue records as contemplated under Sec. 129 of the Act. He further submits that O.S. No.383 of 2008 filed by the vendor of the petitioner for declaring that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner is null and void came to be dismissed by the judgment and decree dtd. 22/3/2016 and the same has attained finality. He also submits that O.S. No.153 of 2006 filed by respondents No.5 to 7 herein for partition and separate possession of their legitimate shares also came to be dismissed on 2/4/2015 and the same has also attained finality. Even otherwise, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 staying operation of the order passed by respondent No.2 dismissing the appeal is not permissible in law.