B. S. BAIRAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the Deputy Commissioner's order dtd. 15/9/2020 made under the revisional jurisdiction vested in him under Sec. 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act , 1964 whereby he has set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order dtd. 25/8/2014 on the basis of which the entries were sought to be made in favour of Petitioner on the basis of a Sale Deed dtd. 22/12/2010, registered on 12/1/1991.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing attention of the Court to the Scheme of law for making mutation of entries in the Revenue Records as enacted in Chapter - II of the 1964 Act argues that once there is a registered sale deed, the Revenue authorities are bound to make mutation of entries on that basis on their own inasmuch as, Form - J is supplied by the Sub-Registrar's Office, to the Revenue Officials, as an intradepartmental communication. He highlights that there is no duty cast on the citizen to report change of title when the same is effected by registered conveyances, in terms of Sec. 128(4) . Therefore, he finds fault with the reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner in making the impugned order on the ground that there is delayed request for mutation of entries.

(3.) Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents vehemently opposes the petition contending that the Sale Deed is obtained prior to the Regrant Order and once the Regrant is made, there is deemed vesting of land in the State with retrospective effect and therefore, nothing flows under the sale deed in question. Learned counsel appearing for the Private Respondents vehemently contends that whatever conveyance made prior to Regrant will pale into insignificance and the Regrant would benefit only the Regrantees alone.