SUNDRABAI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are the wife and children of one Arjunsa Nagendrasa Kathare, who purchased the land bearing Sy.Nos. 789/16 and 786/6 of Ranebennur Village from Hanumantappa Basappa Basenayakar and Huchchappa Tai Hanumavva Basenayakar, under a registered Sale Deed dated 16.05.1968. Mutation entry in respect of the said property was made in the name of Arjunsa Nagendrasa Kathare on 15.05.1971 vide Annexure-B. On 02.06.2007, 3rd respondent filed an appeal, under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act'), before the 2nd respondent, challenging the Mutation Entry No. 7787 dated 15.05.1971 i.e., after about 35 years. The said appeal was allowed on 18.05.2009 vide order as at Annexure-F Petitioners, questioned the said order, by filing a revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Act, before the 1st respondent. The revision petition was dismissed by an order dated 11.11.2010, as at Annexure-C. This writ petition is directed against the said orders.

(2.) Sri V.P. Kulkarni, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, firstly, contended that the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the title to the property and the order, as at Annexure-F, is bad and illegal. Secondly, the 1st respondent has failed to consider the revision petition in accordance with law and the order, as at Annexure-C, is arbitrary and illegal. Thirdly, the impugned orders are cryptic, passed without application of mind and consideration of the matters in accordance with law. Fourthly, the appeal having been filed belatedly, despite objections filed to the application seeking condonation of delay, without consideration of the objections in accordance with law, there being no sufficient cause made out for condoning the inordinate delay of more than 35 years in filing the appeal, the order passed, condoning the delay is illegal. He submitted that the law of limitation has to be enforced in its proper perspective and delay cannot be condoned without any justification. Fifthly, 3rd respondent ought to have been directed to establish his right to the property, if any, before the Civil Court. Instead, the order passed, as at. Annexure-F, is wholly arbitrary and its upholding as per the order as at Annexure-C is illegal.

(3.) Sri B.C. Seetharama Rao, Learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, on the other hand submitted that, the impugned Mutation entry relates to land bearing Sy.Nos. 789/16 and 786/6 of Ranebennur Village, which originally belonged to one Hanumantappa Basappa Basenayakar, who died on 05.07.1967, leaving behind him, his widow Smt. Bharmawwa, who made an application and Mutation Entry No. 6769 was made on 13.12.1967, as per Annexure-G and that the said Bharmawwa died on 18.05.1998. Learned Counsel submitted that, during the lifetime of Bharmawwa, she had not sold the lands and house property and 3rd respondent being the grandson of Bharmawwa, got the katha of the residential house transferred to his name and thereafter approached the Revenue Authority to mutate his name in place of Bharmawwa and upon coming to know that katha of the aforesaid lands shows the name of Arjunsa Nagendrasa Kathare, he immediately obtained the certified copy and preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. Since the Mutation entry as per Annexure-B, had been made by the Talati and was accepted by the Revenue Inspector, contrary to law and as no notice had been served on the kathedar Bharmawwa, as required under Rule 65 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966(for short 'the Rules'), the entry showing the name of Arjunsa Kathare, was not only void but also contrary to mandatory provisions of the Act and hence the 2nd respondent was justified in passing the order, as at Annexure-F. The entry showing the name of Arjunsa Kathare had been made behind the back of Bharmawwa i.e., without notice to her and the said entry being void, upon coming to know of the same, an appeal was preferred without any loss of time. He submitted that, though there was no delay, as a matter of caution, an application seeking condonation of delay, if any, was filed and the 2nd respondent having examined the record of the case and finding that, impugned order in the appeal being wholly illegal, condoned the delay and allowed the appeal. Learned Counsel submitted that the order passed by the 2nd respondent, as at Annexure-F, is final and the petitioners, if aggrieved, have to approach the Civil Court and hence the 1st respondent is justified in dismissing the revision petition.