DHARMOJI DEVENDRA KADABI Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A question of law regarding the rights of the parties on the basis of a mutation entry specially in North Karnataka areas like Belgaum, bijapur, Dharwar etc. , arises for consideration in this petition.

(2.) THE petitioner is the son in law of respondents-2 and 3. The land bearing survey No. 13/2a/1 situated at Karikatti village, Khanapur taluk, Belgaum District is still in the ownership of second respondent sri Jinnappa. In the year 1971, a vardhi was given to the competent authority to enter in the name of his wife third respondent. Accordingly, a mutation was certified by entering the name of the third respondent in respect of survey No. 13/2a/1. In the year 1981, the third respondent due to her old age decided to give 3 acres of land to the petitioner and 5 acres jointly to two other son-in-laws viz, Patil Surendra Jinnappa and Pashetty Sunil Jeevanna. Accordingly, a vardhi was given to the revenue authorities to enter the name of the petitioner for 3 acres and 5 acres in the name of the other two son-in-laws. Consequently, a mutation was certified on 20. 8. 1991 showing the name of petitioner for 3 acres and Patil surendra Jinnappa and Pashetty Sunil Jeevanna for 5 acres in the said survey number. It is the case of the petitioner that they have been enjoying the suit lands as per the mutation entries.

(3.) THE second respondent challenged the mutation entry made in favour of Sunil Jeevanna Pashetty - one of his son-in laws. In the year 1986, the mutation entry was cancelled. Aggrieved by the said order, Sunil Jeevanna challenged the same in the appeal before the assistant Commissioner. His appeal was allowed in the year 1993. The second respondent has again challenged the mutation entry made in favour of the petitioner. The Assistant Commissioner has allowed the same without considering the question of limitation involved in filing the appeal and the legality of the mutation made on 20. 8. 1991 in M. E. No. 336. The petitioner has therefore, challenged the said order praying this Court to quash the same by issuing a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ. The second respondent in particular is the contesting party. In his counter affidavit, he has justified the change of mutation passed by the Assistant commissioner.