PAPAMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition is by a person, who claims to have purchased a piece of agricultural land in terms of a sale deed dated 9. 3. 1995. It is claimed that the petitioner had filed an application before the revenue authorities praying for transfer of katha in terms of the application. The Tahsildar had received the records from the Office of the Sub-Registrar by then and also received the intimation of the factum of registration of such a document before the concerned authority, the authority had issued notices in Form-D to the entries and concerned persons and it turned out that there were several disputes including the identity of the person executing the very document itself, as it appears that there were two Sanna Boraiahs involved and as to who had executed the sale deed in respect of what land etc there was considerable confusion. The Tahsildar while ventured upon to pronounce that the validity of the sale deed registered in terms of Annexure-A sr. No. 2527/94-95 was illegal and therefore while declining the request of the petitioner affirmed the entries as it stood earlier in terms of his order dated 17. 7. 1995.

(2.) PETITIONER being aggrieved had approached the Assistant Commissioner by filing the appeal r. A. No. 49/2000- 2001 in terms of her memorandum of appeal dated 10. 10. 2000 in terms of the provisions under Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short the 'act' ). The Assistant Commissioner as per his order dated 5. 4. 2002, copy at Annexure-C to the petition, allowed the appeal cancelling the order of the Tahsildar and directed the revenue entries to be brought in tune with the sale transaction.

(3.) THE 5th respondent thereafter approached the Deputy Commissioner invoking his revisional jurisdiction under Section 136 (3) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner went into the rival contentions and the parties claims in great detail that while the purchaser was claiming under one Sanna Boraiah, s/o. Obaiah, what was sought to be given effect to in the revenue records was change of entries in respect of the land which had been granted to another Sanna Boraiah, S/o chinnaiah and that could not be under the sale transaction etc. The Deputy Commissioner on recording a finding that the revision petitioner alone was found to be in possession of the land in question in terms of the records which had been granted to him or his predecessors in terms of the revenue records and thought it fit to revise the order of the Assistant Commissioner, set aside the same and directed restoration of the names as it stood originally and that the parties should approach the Civil Court for resolution of the disputes as there was considerable confusion with regard to the claims of the parties. It is against such an order the present writ petition.