KRISHNA SWAMY Vs. BYRAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioners are persons who are very keen that the revenue entries in respect of the following extents of lands in different survey numbers of Sompura village, nelamangala taluk: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_459_AIRKARR3_2009Html1.htm</FRM> and further following extents of land in different survey numbers of Chandanahosahalli, sompura Hobli, Nelamangala taluk : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_459_AIRKARR3_2009Html2.htm</FRM> should remain in their names, but it has been changed in favour of respondents 6, 8 and 9 in terms of two orders passed by the Tahsildar, being given effect to MR No 47/2004, dated 24-3-2005 of Sompur village (copy at Annex-ure-Y to the writ petition) and MR No. 20/2004 dated 24-3-2005 of Chandanahosahalli village, (copy at Annexure-Z to the writ petition)and have sought for quashing of these orders and for consequential mandamus to achieve their object as indicated in the beginning of this paragraph.

(2.) WRIT petitioners basically being aggrieved by the changes effected in the mutation register in terms of the orders passed in mr No. 1/94-95, MR No. 16/94-95, MR No. 7/94-95 and MR No. 29/94-95 as passed on 21-6-1995, whereunder the names of some of the respondents herein came to be entered as against the subject lands, preferred appeals under Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land revenue Act, 1964 (for short, the Act) before the Assistant Commissioner in RA No. 45/95-96, RA No. 93/95-96 and RA (Misc) No. 1/95-96. All these appeals came to be allowed by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the order dated 3-3-1997 (copy at Annexure-L to the writ petition) and the matters had been remanded to the Tahsildar, after setting aside the orders passed by the Tahsildar. However, in the meanwhile, as there were further changes in the mutation register in favour of the purchasers of some of the land from the 6th respondent Smt. Gowramma, the petitioners had preferred RA No. 149/97-98 and RA no. 135/96/97. These appeals were dismissed by the Assistant Commissioner in terms of the order dated 6-3-2000 (copy at Annexure-M to the writ petition ). Revision petition under section 136 (3) of the Act had been preferred to the Deputy Commissioner against these two orders (copy at Annexures-L and M to the writ petition) of the Assistant Commissioner in revision Petition Nos. 1/97-98,10. 97-98, 31/98-99 and 89/2000-01 and the Deputy commissioner in terms of the order dated 7-1-2003 (copy at Annexure-N to the writ petition)allowed the revision petitions, set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and directed restoration of the revenue entries as earlier and remanded the matter to the tahsildar for fresh and proper enquiry.

(3.) IN the meanwhile, one of the purchasers from the eighth respondent in this writ petition, had preferred W. P. No. 4266-69 of 2003 against the very orders of the Deputy commissioner but those writ petitions came to be dismissed by this Court in terms of orders dated 22-1-2004 (copy at Annexure-Q to the writ petition) and this Court impressed that the Tahsildar should dispose of the matter ex-peditiously. It is thereafter, the Tahsildar has passed order dated 7-3-2005 (copy at Annex-ure-W to the writ petition), whereunder the tahsildar has confirmed his earlier changes in terms of the order dated 21-6-1995, rejecting the objections that had been filed by the present petitioners. The further revision petition to the Deputy Commissioner as against such order of the Tahsildar invoking the provisions of Section 136 (3) of the Act, having came to be dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner in terms of the order dated 6-11-2006 (copy at Annexure-AC to the writ petition)passed in Revision Petition No 112/2005-06. The petitioners are before this Court in this writ petition questioning the legality of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, affirming the order of the Tahsildar vide an-nexure-W to the writ petition.