RUDRAPPA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, assailing the correctness of the impugned order dated 9th October, 2006 in proceedings bearing R.P. No. 11/2003 -04 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, Tumkur, vide Annexure -D, have presented the instant writ petition.

(2.) The grievance of the petitioners in the instant writ petition is that, first petitioner has submitted the application to the Village Accountant, Yelachigere Circle seeking deletion of the name of Sri Chidanandaiah from Column 12(2) of the pahani, RTC extract in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 109 measuring 0.33 guntas situate at Malagonahalli Village and to enter the name of first petitioner therein. Accordingly, Form 21 was issued by the Village Accountant deleting the name of Sri Chidanandaiah in view of the consent given by him and to enter the name of*first petitioner in Column 12(2) of the pahani. The Revenue Inspector accepted the said report submitted by the Village Accountant and has passed the order in M.R. Mutation Register No. 5/2000 -01 ordering to record the name of first petitioner in Column 12(2) of the record of rights in respect of the land in question in place of Sri Chidanandaiah. Be that as it may.

(3.) Meanwhile, the third respondent, who is nowhere concerned to the above said land, nor he is the owner nor adjacent owner, but except the fact that, he belongs to the same village, in view of his inimical terms with the petitioners and just to harass the petitioners, has filed the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner under Sub -section (2) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 in proceedings No. RRT(A).123/2002 -03. The Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri Sub -Division, Madhugiri, after hearing both sides and after considering the relevant material available on file, has allowed the appeal filed by third respondent and set aside the mutation entry in M.R. No. 5/2000 -01, dated 8th November, 2001 and directed to record the name of the original owner and to continue to enter the same and out of the said extent, 22 guntas was ordered to be entered in the name of the first petitioner and the remaining extent of land in the said survey number was directed to be shown as "Beelu" which means 'uncultivable' by his order dated 9th June, 2003 vide Annexure -B. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri Sub -Division, Madhugiri, the third respondent has filed the revision petition in case No. R.P/11/2003 -04 on the file of the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, Tumkur against the petitioners. The said revision petition filed by third respondent had come up for consideration before the Deputy Commissioner on 9th October, 2006 and the Deputy Commissioner, after hearing both parties and after perusing the relevant records available on file, has allowed the revision petition filed by third respondent and set aside the impugned orders passed by Tahsildar dated 8th November, 2001 in M.R. No. 5/2000 -01 and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Madhugiri Sub -Division, Madhugiri, dated 9th June, 2003, therein as referred above, and further ordered that, the entries in the RTC shall be maintained as they were earlier to the passing of the impugned orders therein i.e., before the Deputy Commissioner. Assailing the correctness of the impugned order passed by the Revisional Authority -Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District, petitioners herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition.