GOLAPPA Vs. MALAKAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 4-6-1984 passed by the assistant commissioner, bijapur (annexure-d) by which ha has affirmed the order of the tahsildar dated 27-9-1983. By these orders the request of the petitioner for mutation of his name in respect of 8 acres of eastern portion of land in survery no. 1148 of basavana bagewadi, bijapur district, has been rejected. Petitioner filed a worthy for mutating his name as required under section 128 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964 ('the act', for short). His claim was based on a registered sale deed dated 3-2-1964 executed by the contesting respondent no. 1 who in fact was the original owner. Respondent-tahsildar by his order dated 27-9-1983 rejected the claim of the petitioner for mutation on the grounds (i) the application was belated by about 19 years; (ii) from the enquiry it transpired that respondent no. 1 is still in possession of the land in question; and (iii) the sale deed does not appear to be genuine. The appeal filed there against by the petitioner before the respondent no. 3 has been rejected thereby affirming the reasoning given by the tahsildar.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) so far as the question of delay in filing the worthy is concerned, it may be stated here that when there is an acquisition of right in any land pursuant to a registered document, it is the duty cast upon the registering authority under section 128 of the act to make a report of such acquisition of right to the prescribed authority. In the present case it seems that no such report was made by the registering authority, or, if made, no notice thereof was taken by the revenue authority for initiating desired proceedings as provided under section 129 of the act. The duty on the part of the registering authority is mandatory as noticed by this court in the case of n. Shivanna v State of Karnataka and another . Moreover, neither section 128 nor section 129 of the act prescribes any period for filing an application seeking mutation in case of acquisition of a right. That being the position, the reasoning given by the tahsildar that the application was belated and therefore the same cannot be entertained is erroneous being based on extraneous ground. Further, since the execution of the sale deed at annexure-a was not disputed by respondent no. 1 either before the revenue courts or before this court, ex facie, for the purpose of the Act, it has to be taken that the document confers a good title on the petitioner; and, therefore it was incumbent upon the revenue authorities to enter the name of the petitioner in the owner's column, namely column no. 4 of the record of rights.