N KRISHNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKARESENTED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents-1 to 3 and the learned Counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.

(2.) THIS petition is filed by the petitioner under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition no. 51/2000-2001 dismissing the revision petition in confirming the order affecting mutation in mr. No. 27/91-92 in the name of the 4th respondent-society in respect of land in Sy. No. 25/6 measuring 0. 09 guntas situated in Singasandra vilalge, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk.

(3.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is the owner of the said land and his name had been entered in the record of rights from 1970-71 onwards and the name of the 4th respondent has been entered, without holding proper enquiry. The application filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Tahsildar. The said order entering the name of the 4th respondent-society by deleting the name of the petitioner was challenged before the Special deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District and the Special Deputy Commissioner by order dated 10th November 2003, dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order passed by the tahsildar. It is clear from the perusal of the material on record that the land in respect of which mutation entry has been made has been acquired for the 4th respondent-society and following the observation made regarding taking possession by the society in M. F. A. No. 4993 of 2001 by order dated 26th September 2001, the Special Deputy Commissioner has rightly held that when possession of the land has been taken after due acquisition, the question of entering the name of the petitioner would not arise and wherefore, the order passed by the Special Deputy commissioner cannot be said to be suffering from any error or illegality. In this view of the matter, the order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner would be final and would be subject to any declaration that may be given by the civil court regarding the title of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and pass the following order: the writ petition is dismissed. The dismissal of the writ petition would not preclude the petitioner to work out his remedy in the court of competent jurisdiction.