NINGAPPA Vs. SHIVANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioner is that, his late brother by name Basappa died intestate without being married and without having any children. He had got 3 acres of land in Sy. No.812 of Saunshi Village, Kundagol Taluka from the family partition and after his death, his mother succeeded to the same as Class-I legal heir and after her death, petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 5 being her children succeeded to the same. However, respondent Nos.1 to 5 relinquished their right over the said 3 acres of land in favour of the petitioner by giving necessary consent and the petitioner alone became the owner of the said property and the property was mutated in his name. However, respondent No.1 filed an appeal under Sec. 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and respondent No.6 was pleased to allow the same and ordered that the property of 3 acres should be mutated in the name of all the legal heirs of the deceased Basappa (wrongly typed as Ramappa in the impugned order). Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein preferred a revision petition before the respondent No.7, in which several typographical errors committed by respondent No.6 in wrongly recording the mutation number and the name of the person in whose name the property stood were noticed and corrected and the impugned order has been passed, wherein it has been ordered that the names of the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 5 be mentioned in the revenue records. Aggrieved by the same, the instant writ petition is filed.

(2.) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he alone is the owner of the property of his deceased brother Basappa and respondent Nos.6 and 7 ought to have mutated only his name in respect of the said property and not the names of his brothers. However, the petitioner has not been able to produce convincing proof regarding the same and he relies upon certain unregistered documents, which on the face of it cannot be held to have conferred exclusive title on the petitioner herein. Hence, based on the materials placed before him, respondent No.7 has passed the impugned order, wherein he has ordered for mutating the names of the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.1 to 5 in respect of the 3 acres of land which belonged to their deceased brother Basappa. I do not find any error in the well reasoned order of respondent No.7.

(3.) The writ petition being devoid of merits is hereby dismissed.