YASHWANT ABASHEB LAYAKAR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these writ petitions, the petitioners claim to be the purchaser as well as the borrower of loan from the respondent - Society challenging the order passed by the respondent Authorities entering the name of respondent Society in the revenue documents.

(2.) The facts in nut shell are that, the petitioner in writ petition No.66749/2010 and writ petition No.66750/2010 claims to be the borrower of loan from the respondent Society and the petitioner in writ petition Nos.66748/2010 is the purchaser of the schedule property from the said borrower as per the registered sale deed dtd. 2/2/2007. It is further stated that, the respondent Society has raised dispute against the petitioner " borrower on the ground of non performance of account and repayment of loan amount. In this regard, the dispute came to be allowed by the competent authority. In furtherance of the same, the said competent authority " Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Belagavi, has passed an order attaching the schedule properties pertaining to the sale deed dtd. 2/2/2007 and on the basis of the said order of attachment, mutation was effected by the competent Revenue Authority. It is also not in dispute that the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangaluru, has dismissed the appeal preferred by the borrower in Appeal No.404/2000 dtd. 29/12/2000 and the said order was confirmed by this Court in W.P.No.17683/2005 dtd. 2/8/2005. The said change of entry made in favour of the purchaser was challenged before the Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi and the said Revenue Authority by order dtd. 26/8/2009, accepted the appeal preferred by the Society and as such, directed the 3rd respondent " Deputy Tahasildar, Sadalaga, to enter the name of the Society in the mutation entries and the said order of Assistant Commissioner, Chikodi was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, by order dtd. 5/8/2010. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions have been preferred by the borrower (the original land owner) and the purchaser, contending that the Revenue Authorities ought not to have entered the name of the Society in the revenue records.

(3.) Sri. Shivaraj P. Mudhol, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the aforementioned writ petitions argued that, the schedule land has been sold by the original purchaser in favour of the purchaser (petitioner in writ petition No.66748/2010) and therefore, in terms of Sec. 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the KLR Act", for brevity), the Revenue Authorities ought to have given effect to enter the name of the purchaser in terms of the registered document. He also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of The Bangalore District and Bangalore Rural District Central Co-op Bank Ltd. Rep. by its Managing Director vs. State of Karnataka, by its Principal Secretary, Revenue Department and Others reported in ILR 2005 KAR 377 and argued that, the order passed by the competent Registrar of Co-Operative Societies attaching the property in question cannot be held as a charge under Sec. 100 of Transfer of Property Act and therefore, he contended that the interference of this court is necessitated to set right the illegal orders passed by the Revenue Authorities.