RADHAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case of the petitioners is that their ancestor by name Munivenkataswamappa purchased 1 acre 18 guntas of land in Survey No.47/6 of Katamnalluru village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru East Taluk from one Lingappa by way of a registered sale deed dtd. 27/5/1968. However, there was an error in the sale deed in mentioning the address wherein the survey number is shown as 47/8 instead of 47/6. However, the schedule to the property is proper. Survey No.47/8 consists of only 13 guntas of land and owned by one Basappa. As Munivenkataswamappa was illiterate, he did not get the revenue documents changed into his name. The RTC in respect of Survey No.47/6 showed the name of Lingappa in Column No.9 and the name of Munivenkataswamappa in Column No.12(2) and after the death of Munivenkataswamappa, the name of his brother Venkatachalaiah in Column No.12(2). Taking advantage of the same, respondent nos.5 to 7, who are the legal heirs of Lingappa, got an order from respondent no.4 to mutate their names in the revenue entries in respect of Survey No.47/6. This was challenged by the petitioners before respondent no.3/Assistant Commissioner, who has set aside the said order and remanded the matter back to Tahsildar. Respondent nos.5 to 8 preferred a revision before respondent no.2/Deputy Commissioner, who has set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner and confirmed the order of the Tahsildar. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. In the meanwhile, on 24/12/2020, respondent no.5 and his family members have executed a rectification deed in favour of the petitioners herein stating that the sale made by father of respondent no.5, Lingappa, was in respect of Survey No.47/6 and not Survey No.47/8. Thereafter, on 1/1/2021, respondent no.6 has sold the property in Survey No.47/6 in favour of respondent no.9 herein.

(2.) The petitioners on the ground that the property sold to them is Survey No.47/6 and not Survey No.47/8, have prayed for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and to effect the khatha of the property in their names.

(3.) Per contra, respondent no.9 on the ground that the property sold to the ancestor of the petitioners does not form part of Survey No.47/6 and he has purchased the said property from respondent no.6 prays for dismissal of the writ petition.