KRISHNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioners is that they are all children of one late Muniyamma. She died on 30/11/2017. She was the owner of 1 acre 20 guntas of land in Sy.No.126/1 in Bhoganahalli Village, Bangalore East Taluk. The revenue records pertaining to the said property stood in her name. Hence, the petitioners requested respondent No.4 to mutate their names in the place of Muniyamma as they inherited the said property from her. However, respondent No.4 has refused to do so and has issued an endorsement demanding the production of original grant certificate by the petitioners. The contention of the petitioners is that their mother got a portion of the property by way of gift and other portion by way of sale and based on the said documents, her name was mutated as the owner of the property and now respondent No.4 cannot insist on production of the original grant certificate.

(2.) The learned HCGP for the respondents admits that the revenue records reflect the name of Muniyamma as being the owner of the property. However, she contends that there is a possibility that the property is a Government land and for that reason the impugned endorsement is issued.

(3.) It is a well settled principle of law that a revenue officer like Tahsildar cannot decide as to title of the property. Based on the documents made available to him, if it reflects that the claimant is the owner, he has to mutate that person's name in the revenue records. Only a civil Court can decide as to the title. In the instant case, admittedly, the name of Muniyamma is reflected as the owner of the property concerned in the revenue records. When petitioners approached respondent No.4 with a prayer to mutate their names, respondent No.4 is required to verify whether Muniyamma has died and whether petitioners are her children and if documents are produced to that effect, and if yes, respondent No.4 is required to mutate their names in the revenue records as the owners. If respondent No.4 is of the opinion that the property concerned is a Government land, he is always at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings in the manner known to law, but that cannot be a ground to refuse the request of the petitioners. Hence, the following: