CHIKKACHOWDAPPA S/O. LATE MEKE RAMAIAH Vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVIISON BANGALORE-09, THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK K.R. PURAM BANGALORE AND SRI. LAKSHMANAPPA S/O. LATE PILLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Government Pleader takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. In this writ petition, order dated 17.06.2011 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub -Division, Bangalore, allowing the appeal filed by the 3rd respondent and setting aside the mutation entry effected vide MR. No. 19/2008 -09 by the Tahsildar is called in question. In fact, the petitioner had earlier filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner. The said revision petition having been dismissed, she had approached this Court in W.P.No. 18556/2012. The said writ petition was allowed on 13.06.2012 setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner holding that he had no jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, the Act') to revise the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act. However, liberty was reserved to the petitioner to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. It is in this background, petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order, the Assistant Commissioner having referred to the contentions of the respective parties, has held that the previous mutation entry in MR. No. 16/1980 -81 was effected and certified by the Tahsildar based on a registered Sale Deed executed in the year 1974 and therefore the Tahsildar could not have effected the impugned mutation entry on 06.01.2009 in MR. No. 19/2008 -09 without following the rules. Therefore, he has set aside the impugned mutation entry and has issued a direction to the Tahsildar to effect entries in the revenue records as per the Sale Deed dated 20.12.1974.

(3.) THOUGH he has rightly held that the Tahsildar did not follow the rules inasmuch as no notice had been issued to the 3rd respondent before effecting the mutation entry in MR. No. 19/2008 -09, the Assistant Commissioner erred in not remitting the matter back to the Tahsildar after setting aside the impugned mutation entry.