LACHAMAYYA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Government Pleader is directed to take notice for respondents 1 to 3. Petitioners and respondents 4 to 7 are stated to be the joint family members. The properties in question were stated to have been relinquished in favour of the petitioners by respondents 4 to 7 by giving a varadi/application to the Revenue Inspector; based on the said varadi, mutation came to be made in the name of the petitioners as per Annexures-A, A1 and A2 in respect of the petition properties on 27-12-2000. After five to six years, respondents 4 to 7 approached the Assistant Commissioner questioning the said mutation entries by filing the appeal, which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, respondents 4 to 7 approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing revision petition, which came to be allowed as per Annexure-E, dated 10-7-2013. The same is impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) This Court does not find any error in the impugned order inasmuch as, there is no deed of relinquishment, much less registered deed of relinquishment. Relinquishment is nothing but transfer and therefore the same should be compulsorily registered. In view of the same, the petitioners cannot claim ownership over the properties in question based on a varadi given by respondents 4 to 7 under which the respondents 4 to 7 allegedly relinquished their rights over the properties in question. In view of the same, no interference is called for. Though the Deputy Commissioner has not assigned the aforementioned reason while coming to the conclusion, the conclusion reached by the Deputy Commissioner is just and proper and hence the same stands confirmed for the aforementioned reasons.