GUDDAPPA FAKIRAPPA MADAR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAVERI DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Fakirappa Madar was the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 14/a measuring 9 acres 29 guntas situated at Nelli':oppa Village, Byadagi taluk, Haveri District. He died in the year 1971. On his death, the third respondent herein made an application to the Revenue Authorities to mutate his name in place of his deceased father as the deceased father left behind the third respondent as the only legal heir. On that basis, the name of third respondent was entered in the mutation register. It continued up to 1986. In the year 1986, on the basis of a consent wardi given on 20-12-1986, the petitioners names were entered in the mutation register and the name of third respondent was deleted. Aggrieved by the same, the third respondent preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in Appeal No. RTS. AP. 3/90-91 without filing any application for condoning the delay. The said appeal came to be dismissed in limine as barred by time. Thereafter, the third respondent after a lapse of six years preferred one more appeal suppressing the fact that he had preferred earlier appeal and it had been dismissed on the ground of bar of limitation. In the second appeal he made an application for condonation of delay. The Assistant Commissioner condoned the delay and set aside the mutation entry made by the Tahsildar on the basis of joint wardi. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner. In the meanwhile, the third respondent has also preferred a revision against the order dismissing the earlier appeal as barred by time. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing both the revisions dismissed the revision filed by the petitioners and allowed the revision filed by the third respondent on the ground that the assistant Commissioner has already set aside the entry in the mutation register in the second appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

(2.) SRI F. V. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, contended that when the first appeal preferred by the third respondent was dismissed as barred by limitation, the second appeal filed by him with an application for condonation of delay on the ground that he was not aware of the earlier proceedings could not have been allowed by the deputy Commissioner as it clearly amounts to suppression of facts. Secondly, he contends when the third respondent did not challenge the order passed in appeal which was dismissed as barred by time, the second appeal itself was not maintainable. The Deputy Commissioner committed serious error in dismissing the revision filed by the petitioners and in entertaining the revision preferred by third respondent. Lastly, he contended when a joint wardi was the basis for making an entry it was not open to the third respondent to challenge the same and if really he is aggrieved he should initiate appropriate civil proceedings to establish his title to the property and the proceedings initiated by him by way of revision and appeal is not a remedy for him.

(3.) PER contra, Sri Chandrashekar P. Patil, learned Counsel for the third respondent contends, though there is some irregularity in the procedure adopted by the second respondent in challenging the mutation order, the fact remains that the petitioners are in no way related to the third respondent. They were not the legal heirs of deceased Fakirappa, the original owner, and in joint wardi their names could not have been entered as it does not confer any title on them and more over when the petitioners have already filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction in O. S. No. 64 of 1999 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), ranebennur. When the matter is pending consideration before the Civil court, the Revenue Authorities should not have entered the names of the petitioners till a final judgment is given in the said suit. In this view of the matter, he submits that the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner will not call for any interference.