K.N. GEETHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 19-6-2013 passed in R.A. No. 71/2010-2011. The order is impugned at Annexure-B to the petition. The private respondents have filed their objection statement opposing the instant petition and justifying the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

(2.) The facts in brief are that the petitioners herein contend that they are the absolute owners of 5 acres 20 guntas in Survey No. 130 situate at Chikka Thirupathi Village, Lakkur Hobli, Malur Taluk, having purchased the same under a sale deed dated 17-11-2003 from one Sri Robert D. Almeda. The said vendor of the petitioners is stated to have purchased the said property from one Sri Doddabbaiah under the sale deed dated 26-6-1992. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners are stated to have secured the mutation orders and revenue entries in the name of the petitioners vide M.R. No. 50/04-05. The private respondents herein claiming to be aggrieved by the same, have filed appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short) in R.A. No. 321/2006-07. The Assistant Commissioner by the order dated 27-11-2010 (Annexure-A) had dismissed the appeal. The private respondents herein claiming to be aggrieved by the same had filed a revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner in R.A. No. 71 of 2010-11 which was disposed of on 19-6-2013, allowing the revision and ordering reversal the revenue entries.

(3.) The claim of the petitioners herein is that since the entries have been made pursuant to the registered sale deeds executed by their vendor and when the earlier revenue entries which stood in the name of Sri Doddabbaiah and subsequently in the name of Sri Robert D. Almeda had not been called in question, the private respondents could not have assailed the revenue entries made in favour of the petitioners herein. Even otherwise, it is contended that the Assistant Commissioner having taken note of these aspects and also the fact that there was civil litigation, has dismissed the appeal. It is contended that the Deputy Commissioner without taking into consideration that aspect of the matter has proceeded to reassess the matter and the rights of the parties has been decided which is beyond the scope of consideration under Section 136(3) of the Act.