MALLAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this writ petition has challenged the order dated 20.7.20.10 passed in Revision Petition No. 12/2010 -11 by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District, Mysore confirming the order dated 28.6.2010 passed in R.A. No. 191/2007 -089 by the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur. The grievance of the petitioner is that the land bearing Sy. No. 95, measuring 3 acres 29 guntas situated at Telaginakuppe Village, Periyapatna Taluk, belonged to the husband of the petitioner one Kullegowda @ Doddakullegowda. After the death of Kullegowda, his wife (the petitioner herein) and his daughter Smt. Parvathamma succeeded to his estate. When Smt. Parvathamma tried to interfere with the possession, Mallamma W/o Kullegowda filed a suit in O.S. No. 197/2004 seeking for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the property. The Civil Court decreed the suit on 25.9.2004. However, the daughter of the petitioner along with her husband sold the property in favour of the respondent No. 4 herein. On the basis of the said sale deed, the respondent No. 4 made an application before the Tahsildar to mutate his name in the revenue records. The petitioner filed her objections to the same before the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar, after examining the matter, rejected the application filed by the respondent No. 4, reserving liberty to him to establish his right in the Civil Court. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respondent No. 4 preferred an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No. 191/07 -08. The Assistant Commissioner, without considering the contentions raised by the respondent No. 4 herein, by his order dated 28.6.2010 allowed the appeal by setting aside the order passed in M.R. No. 29/05 -06 and directed the Tahsildar to mutate the name of the respondent No. 4 in the revenue records. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner herein preferred revision Petition No. 12/2010 -11 invoking Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy commissioner, without examining the matter in detail, by cryptic order dismissed the revision petition by his order dated 20.7.2010. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

(2.) SRI C.R. Gopalaswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4 contended that the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner because she is not the owner of the property. Smt. Parvathamma, daughter of Kullegowda, her husband and her minor children have executed the sale deed in respect of the land in question. On the basis of the said registered sale deed, the respondent No. 4 has approached the Tahsildar to mutate his name in the revenue records. On Tahsildar declining to enter the name of the respondent No. 4 in the revenue records, he filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, who in turn has passed the order dated 28.6.2010 directing the Tahsildar to mutate the name of the respondent No. 4 in the revenue records. He therefore contends that there is no error in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and hence seeks for dismissal of this writ petition.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the order of the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner herein filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner. Though several contentions have been taken, the Deputy Commissioner without examining the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner has dismissed the revision petition, which is not sustainable. Under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, revision has been provided. The Deputy Commissioner has to examine the matter in detail and pass an order. On perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, it is clear that no reason has been assigned for dismissing the revision petition. Hence, the Deputy Commissioner has to consider the matter on merits and pass appropriate orders. Accordingly, I allow this petition by setting aside the order dated 20.7.2010 passed in Revision No. 12/2010 -11 and remand the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the matter afresh and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.