LAWS(KAR)-2022-7-652

B.S.MOHAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

Decided On July 28, 2022
B.S.Mohan Appellant
V/S
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Additional Government Advocate takes notice for respondents No.1 and 2. Learned Counsel Smt.R.Radha has entered appearance for respondent No.3 by filing a Caveat Petition. Notice to respondents No.4 and 5 is not necessary for the following reasons;

(2.) The petitioner had approached respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner, Mandya Sub-Division, by filing a appeal under Sec. 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, calling in question three mutation entries made way back in the year 1979, 1991 and 1995- 96. The mutation entries were made in the name of the father of respondent No.3-Sri.Bhadregowda. It is admitted that Sri.Bhadregowda, the father of respondent No.3 and Sri.Puittegowda, grandfather of the petitioner herein were brothers. Mutation entries having taken place at an undisputed point of time and during the lifetime of the petitioner's grandfather and father, they have not been challenged the same. For the first time, the petitioner sought to challenge the same before the Assistant Commissioner in the year 2016. The Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and cancelled the mutation entries in M.R.No.18/1979-80, M.R.No.51/1991- 92 and M.R.No.63/1995-96 and directed the Tahsildar to take action in accordance with law to enter the name of the original khatedars. Aggrieved, respondent No.3 approached the Deputy Commissioner invoking the revisional jurisdiction under Sec. 136(3) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner having noticed that the petitioner herein had sought to challenge the mutation entries which were made way back in the year 1979, 1991, 1995, held that the Assistant Commissioner could not have entertained the appeal beyond the period prescribed in law. Consequently, the Revision Petition filed by respondent No.3 was allowed while setting aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner.

(3.) On hearing the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for respondent No.3, learned Additional Government Advocate and on perusing the petition papers, this Court finds that there is no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that the mutation entries have stood for a long time and the real dispute is regarding the title to the property. The Aggrieved person is required to approach the competent civil court and get a declaration regarding his/her title. Once such a declaration is made by the competent civil court, the name of the successful party will be entered in the land records.