R.M. PRAKASH Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 4 and 5 and the learned Government Pleader. It appears, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have refused to make changes in the revenue entries and issuing katha on the ground that petitioner has belatedly approached the revenue authorities seeking for change of necessary entries in the revenue records and for issuance of katha.

(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the father of the respondents 4 and 5 had executed two registered Sale Deeds on 9.11.1994, one in favour of Patel Chikke Gowda, to an extent of 4 acres and another in favour of Venkataiah, to an extent of 2 acres in Survey No. 45 of Averahalli Village, Dasanpura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, which totally measures 12 acres. The son of Venkataiah viz., Chikka Yellaiah in turn, sold the land to an extent of 2 acres which he had inherited, to Patel Chikke Gowda under a registered Sale Deed dated 20.10.1964. Thus, Patel Chikke Gowda became the absolute owner of 6 acres of land in Survey No. 45. The children of Patel Chikke Gowda effected partition of their family properties, including the land bearing Survey No. 45, under a registered Partition Deed and this Survey No. 45 fell to the share of petitioner herein. However, the extent of Survey number was wrongly mentioned in the Partition Deed and this has resulted in a registered Rectification Deed, correcting the extent of the land as 6 acres in Survey No. 45. It is further submitted that request of the petitioner for entry of his name in the RTC was pending consideration before the Tahsildar. Subsequently, the second son of Puttabylappa requested the 2nd respondent -Assistant Commissioner to enter his name in the RTC along with one Veena Gowda, who was the daughter of first son of Puttabylappa. The Assistant Commissioner without even issuing notice and without verifying the records, directed to mutate the name of respondents 4 and 5 to an extent of 3 acres 3 guntas and 3 acres 10 guntas respectively and also directed that the name of the petitioner be mutated only to an extent of 2 acres, though petitioner owns 6 acres in Survey No. 45. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, it is the obligation on the part of the respondents -authorities to make changes in the revenue entries based on the registered documents and it is not for the petitioner to make application in this regard and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Revision rejecting the same on the ground that the petitioner approached belatedly, is erroneous and accordingly sought for quashing the orders passed by both Assistant Commissioner, as well as Deputy Commissioner.

(3.) IT is to be noted that, as per Section 128 of the Act, upon registration of any document or transfer of conveyance, it is for the Sub -Registrar to report to the revenue authorities to make necessary changes in the RTC on the basis of the acquisition of rights, might be after verification of the documents. As such, when there is an obligation on the part of the State to effect necessary changes in the revenue entries, it is the duty of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner to pass orders based on the registered documents, but in the case on hand, even though the petitioner has produced the registered documents, they have failed to discharge their responsibility. Further, even assuming that there is a dispute by the contesting respondents, it is for the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner to entertain the case of the petitioner and if need be, by issuing notice to the concerned parties and then to pass orders, by effecting necessary changes in the revenue entries based on the registered Rectified Deed. Instead of doing so, they straight away rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of delay. In that view of the matter, the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are set aside and the matter is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to consider the case of the petitioner, after issuing due notice to the concerned parties. Writ Petition is allowed accordingly.