SIR BASAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOUGH the matter is listed for preliminary hearing in 'b' group, with the consent of both the parties, it is heard and disposed of by this order.

(2.) THIS is a writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging Annexure-C and C1 dated 10/10/2001 passed by the 2nd respondent-Asst. Commissioner in No. RTS:ap:26:99-2000 and the order passed by the 1st respondent-Deputy Commissioner in case No. RTS:revision:36:2001-02 dated 20/10/2003, mainly on the ground that since the petitioner is the bona fide purchaser of the property bearing Sy. No. 35/6 measuring 3 acres 15 guntas of land situated in Aheri village in sindgi taluk under register sale deed dated 15/6/1994 from the Respondent-5, which was fallen to this share in a petition. Since Respondent-6 being the power of attorney holder has executed a sale deed on behalf of Respondent-5, and ever since from the date of purchase the Petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land. Therefore, on the basis of the vardhi submitted by him the mutation was effect in the name of the petitioner. To that effect he has produced Annexure-D the record of rights to show that he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Since Respondent-4 has been challenging the order of mutation before the Asst. Commissioner, the Asst. Commissioner has held that the since civil suit is pending between Respondent-4 and 5, therefore stayed any entry made in the record of rights on the basis of the sale deed. The mutation Entry No. 1982 was stayed. Therefore, the petitioner therein and one Shantabai respondent-5 assailing the said order, preferred a Revision Petition under Section 136 (3) of the karnataka Land Reforms Act before the Deputy Commissioner in No. RTS:revision:36:2001-02. After considering the materials placed on record, the Deputy commissioner, dismissed the revision petition. Therefore, he has come up with this writ petition, to quash Annexures-C and C1 passed by the Asst. Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner.

(3.) HEARD the arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for respondent no. 4 and Government Advocate for Respondent-1 to 3.