CHIKKEGOWDA @ SANNEGOWDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Renukaradhya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of M/S. P. Nataraju Associates for petitioner, Sri Vijay Kumar A Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri R.S. Ravi, learned counsel appearing for respondents 4 & 5. Perused the impugned order as also the writ papers. By consent of learned Advocates matter is taken-up for final disposal.

(2.) The third respondent mutated the revenue records relating to survey No.66/2 measuring 2 acres 17 guntas situated at Gangadarahosahalli village, HD Kote Taluk, in MR No.14/98-99 on an application made by the legal heirs of Smt. Kalamma i.e. 4th and 5th respondent herein and entered the names of respondents 4 & 5 in column No.9 to the entire extent and ordered for entering the name of petitioner and respondents 4 & 5 in column No.12(2). Aggrieved by this order, petitioner filed an appeal before the second respondent in RA No.59/2006- 07 and same came to be allowed by ordering the name of the petitioner to be entered to an extent of 2 acres 17 guntas and the remaining portion to be entered in the names of respondents 4 & 5 equally. Aggrieved by this order, respondents 4 & 5 filed a revision petition in RP No.23/2007-08 before the first respondent who set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and on the ground that Writ Petitioner herein had not made attempts to get the katha mutated to his name in the revenue records though he claims to have purchased portion of survey No.66/2 namely to an extent of 2 acres 17 guntas way back in the year 1962 and as such, ordered for restoration of the katha as ordered in MR No.14/98-99 as ordered by the 3rd respondent. Aggrieved by this order, petitioner is before this court.

(3.) It is the contention of Mr. Renukaradhya, learned counsel appearing for petitioner that third respondent has passed the order to change the katha in favour of 4th and 5th respondents without issuing notice to the petitioner and without following the procedure prescribed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules made therein. He would also contend that pursuant to the registered sale deed executed by Shettygowda i.e. father-in-law of the vendor of the petitioner, petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the said land and the name of the petitioner is reflected in column No.12(2) of revenue records and admittedly, the property which was conveyed to the petitioner's father by the said Shettygowda had fallen to his share in a family partition between himself and his brother and respondents 4 & 5 do not have any right, title and interest over the land sold to the petitioner. He would further contend that the name of the petitioner had not been entered in column No.12(2) pursuant to the registered sale deed dated 12.04.1962 and third respondent committed an error in not considering this fact and without issuing notice to the petitioner, the revenue records came to be mutated and said entry made by the third respondent came to be rightly reversed by the second respondent in the appeal filed by the petitioner and erroneously same has been reversed by the first respondent. In support of his submission, he relies upon the judgment in the case of Gopalappa Vs. Malak, 1995 ILR(Kar) 118.