DR. K.S. DESHIKACHAR AND SMT. PRATHIBA DESHIKACHAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND REVENUE OFFICER MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 28.12.2012 which is impugned at Annexure -A to the petition. By the said endorsement, the respondents have intimated the petitioners that the request made for change of revenue entries to the name of the petitioners cannot be accepted and an appropriate order be obtained in civil proceedings. The case of the petitioner is that the property bearing No. 1088/995/1 measuring East to West 91 ft North to South 101 ft was purchased by the petitioners under sale deeds dated 22.08.2007 and 23.08.2007 from its erstwhile owner Sri B. Venkatapathi Naidu. The petitioners contend that one Smt. Achchamma acquired the property under a grant order dated 04.01.1932 issued by the Tahsildar and thereafter the property was bequeathed in favour of the vendor of the petitioners by a WILL dated 04.06.1951. The said Smt. Achchamma died on 26.06.1956. Therefore, the vendor of the property became the owner of the property. Thereafter the petitioners contend that the revenue entries were changed to the name of the vendor of the petitioners and in that regard the extracts, as at Annexures -D and E are relied on.

(2.) IT is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that when the petitioners have purchased the property under registered sale deeds, they have acquired title to the property and the respondents are not justified in directing the petitioners to secure their right declared in a Civil Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that having produced all the materials claiming ownership to the property the only action that was required to be made by the respondents was to enter the name of the petitioners in the revenue register. Reliance is also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Real Estate Agencies vs. Govt. of Goa and ors (2012) 6 SC 598).

(3.) IN the light of the above, the endorsement dated 28.12.2012 would indicate that the same does not disclose the reasons except to state that the petitioners would have to get their right decided in the Civil Court. Be that as it may, the nature of the contentions which has been put forth by the respondents cannot be ignored. At the same time, the contention put forth by the petitioners claiming right to the property under the documents relied on by the petitioners cannot be brushed aside at this juncture. Keeping in view the nature of the contentions put forth by the respondents stating that the name of the Medical Officer has been indicated in the revenue records, though at the first instance there is nothing to indicate that any proceedings have been held to enter the name of the vendor of the petitioners, at this juncture since it has come to light that an earlier entry which existed has been changed without any explanation, in this regard, even if the petitioner seeks change of revenue entries based on certain documents, the appropriate course for the respondents is to issue notice to the person in whose name the property stood earlier, inquire as to how the same was transferred to the name of the vendor of the petitioner and find out whether the said entry is disputed. On issuing notice to the person in whose name the entry stood and on securing the documents relating to ownership, if such documents are in conflict with the documents relied on by the petitioners, only in such circumstance, the petitioners have to be relegated to the civil proceedings as otherwise if the claims are distinct and different certainly the claim of the petitioners would have to be considered.