AMMOJI Vs. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this joint writ action have sought writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order passed by the first respondent -Special Deputy Commissioner dated 10 -10 -2011 vide Annexure -A and also seek direction to the fourth respondent to refrain from interfering with their possession or creating any charge or encumbrance in respect of the property in question. In the party array, the petitioners have brought in Smt. Yashodamma, the fourth respondent who has set up rival claim of title and interest in the property. The Special Deputy Commissioner, who has passed the impugned order Annexure -A as the first respondent. The Assistant Commissioner, whose order was assailed before the first respondent, is the second respondent, the Tahsildar who has exercised the original jurisdiction to entertain an application filed under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act') as the third respondent.

(2.) THE petition is in 'B' Group for hearing and on the basis of preparedness of the learned Counsel on both sides, the petition is taken up for hearing.

(3.) IT is averred, Karagappa, Annayappa and Nagappa are the genetic brothers who inherited the lands in question from the common propositus Annayappa. The petitioners, being the children of Annayappa and Nagappa constitute coparceners of the joint family. They, therefore, have defined share in the land in question which has not been divided by metes and bounds. It is alleged Karagappa, Annayappa and Nagappa executed power of attorney in favour of Sri Anantharama Reddy, the husband of fourth respondent and on the basis of such document, he executed two sale deeds dated 7 -6 -2004 and 15 -6 -2004 respectively, in favour of the fourth respondent (his wife Smt. Yashodamma) conveying on to her the land in Sy. No. 55/8 measuring 0.08.08 and in another land in Sy. No. 0.12.08 guntas respectively. Describing the sale deeds as null and void and not binding on them, the petitioners questioned the claim of the 4th respondent. According to them, the fourth respondent armed with two sale deeds referred to above applied to the third respondent -Tahsildar to mutate the revenue records to enter her name as the person having acquired right, title and interest which application, the third respondent has considered and effected katha and mutation, incorporating her name in respect of the said land as per the entries in M.R. No. 62/2003 -2004. They allege such an order is passed without their knowledge and without giving them an opportunity or notice.