ADILAKSHMAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has sought for quashing of the order passed in R.A. No. 14/2008-09, dated 24-8-2009, Annexure-D whereunder the revision filed by petitioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 has been allowed and the order passed by second respondent dated 3-9-2007, Annexure-C has been set aside. The facts in brief leading to the filing of this writ petition are as under:

(2.) Heard Sri M. Shiva Prakash, learned Counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri R.B. Sathyanarayana Singh, learned HCGP appearing for respondents 1 to 3 and Sri Mithun, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri G.D. Ashwatha Narayan for respondent 4. Perused the records.

(3.) It is the contention of Sri Shiva Prakash, learned Counsel for petitioners that respondent 1 committed a serious error in ignoring the registered Sale Deed dated 15-4-1974 and the mutation proceedings MR. No. 21 of 1974-75 whereunder, the name of Sri Gangi Reddy had been entered and as such allowing of the revision petition by 1st respondent without any cogent reasons is liable to be set aside. He would contend that when there is a registered Sale Deed executed in favour of the first petitioner's husband and father of petitioners 2 and 3, the respondent authorities were fully justified in mutating the name of the said Gangi Reddy in the revenue records which did not call for any interference. He would further submit that 4th respondent claimed title to the property on the ground that the vendors of Gangi Reddy did not have absolute right and said issue could not be resolved in the proceedings under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the parties are required to get the said dispute adjudicated in a Competent Civil Court and as such, there was no justifiable cause for the first respondent to upset the findings of respondents 2 and 3 particularly when 4th respondent himself has filed a suit in O.S. No. 271 of 2007 seeking cancellation of the Sale Deed executed in favour of Gangi Reddy and for declaration of title to the land in question in his favour. As such, it is contended that first respondent was not justified in entertaining the revision petition under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Act. On these grounds, he seeks for quashing of the impugned order and allowing the writ petition.