M. SATYAVATHI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER aggrieved by the order dated 30.07.2013 in Revision Petition No. 40/2006 -07 of the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur District - 1st respondent dismissing the revision petition and confirming the order dated 13.09.2006 of the Assistant Commissioner - 2nd respondent in RRT Appeal No. 83/2005 -06, has presented this petition. Petitioner is said to have acquired right, title and interest over 3 acres of land in Sy. No. 67/9/A and 2 acres 6 guntas of land in Sy. No. 70/E of Somalapur village in Sindhanur Taluk under a registered sale deed bearing No. 263/78 -79 dated 17.05.1978 executed by one Smt. Chithuri Akkayamma nevertheless asserts to be in possession of 4 acres 6 guntas in Sy. No. 67/9/A and 2 acres 22 guntas in Sy. No. 70/E. According to the petitioner, during the year 1989 -90, an application when made to the Assistant Director of Land Records to mutate her name insofar as excess land is concerned, in terms of the Karnataka Division Settlement Akarband (Extract), was allowed during 1990 -91 and accordingly the revenue records were rectified as disclosed in the Record of Rights for the year 1988 -89 to 1992 -93 - Annexure -A.

(2.) IT is the allegation of the petitioner that during the year 2005 -06, the 3rd respondent unconnected with the land in Sy. No. 67/9/A, preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent in RRT Appeal No. 83/2005 -06 claiming that he has purchased agricultural land measuring 31 guntas in Sy. No. 108 and Sy. No. 112 situated in Salagunda village adjacent to the land of the petitioner and in between the lands of the parties there is a cart track. In the appeal it was alleged that the petitioner secured an order to mutate her name insofar as 6 acres 28 guntas of land is concerned without having acquired right, title and interest in the registered conveyance deed.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that under the sale deed dated 17.05.1978, 3 acres in Sy. No. 67/9/A and 2 acres 6 guntas in Sy. No. 70/E was conveyed to the petitioner. If that is so, then petitioner is entitled to have her name entered in the mutation records in respect of the aforesaid survey numbers and to the extent mentioned in the sale deed/conveyance deed. If the petitioner claims to be in possession of a larger extent of the land in the very same survey numbers, then it is not for the Revenue Authorities to decide the said claim of the petitioner over excess land, but it is only the Civil Court which can conveniently adjudicate on the said right and issue necessary declaratory relief.