NAGARAJA Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner claims to be purchaser of land measuring 1 acre in Sy. No. 15/4P2 of Malalur village, Amble Hobli, Chikmagalur Taluk and District, under a sale deed registered as document No. 277/1997-98 dated 26.4.1997 from H.C. Rame Gowda, for a valuable consideration, whereafter, the prescribed authority recorded the name of the petitioner in the mutation register at No. 8/1997-98. It is the allegation of the petitioner that one Siddaramegowda, the husband of respondent No. 5 and father of respondents-6 and 7 informed, the Tahsildar respondent No. 3 about acquisition of right, title and interest by his father Gange Gowda under a registered sale deed dated 21.8.1965 executed by one Channe Gowda. The Tahsildar, by order dated 4.12.2002, rejected the application, when the 4th respondent Siddamma, w/o Gange Gowda along with Siddarame Gowda, preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'Act') before the Assistant Commissioner, respondent No. 2. That Siddarame Gowda, is said to have died on 3.2.2011 and his legal representatives were not brought on record in the appeal. Hence, the Assistant Commissioner held that the appeal abates by order dated 21.5.2011, following which, respondents-4 to 7, claiming as legal representatives of Siddarame Gowda along with siddamma preferred revision petition 60/2011-2012 before the Deputy Commissioner which, by order dated 23.12.2014, was allowed, the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Tahsildar were set aside with a direction to the Tahsildar, the 3rd respondent, to effect mutation entries in the name of respondents-5 to 7 on the basis of the sale deed dated 21.8.1965. Hence this petition.

(2.) Petition deserves to be allowed for the following two reasons. In the first place, respondents-5 to 7 claim to be legal representatives of one Siddarame Gowda, who is reported to have died during pendency of appeal No. 30/2010-11 on the file of Assistant Commissioner and by order dated 21.05.2011 the appeal abated, since legal representatives were not brought on record, although 4th respondent Siddamma was the first appellant and Siddarame Gowda was the 2nd appellant. The 4th respondent along with legal representatives of Siddarame Gowda, i.e. respondents-5 to 7, herein, jointly preferred revision petition invoking sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the 'Act' although such petition was not available since the legal representatives were required to file application in the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner to have the order dated 21.5.2011 recalled by setting aside the abatement. That procedure when not followed, the revision petition, before the Deputy Commissioner was not maintainable.

(3.) Secondly, the Deputy Commissioner without authority or competence to adjudicate over the civil rights of the parties, relating to right, title and interest in the immovable property in question, conducted an adjudication, without a trial. Since there was no jurisdiction or competence to record the evidence of the parties as held by the Full Bench Decision of this court in C.N. Nagendra Singh v. The Special Deputy Commission, Bangalore District and others, 2002 ILR(Kar) 2750, which when not noticed by the Deputy Commissioner, opined that respondents-4 to 7, had right, title and interest and their names ought to be recorded in the mutation register and accordingly directed so, by the order impugned.