(1.) Petitioner has assailed order dated 20/11/2017 passed by the Second Respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore in Revision Petition No.71/2017-(Annexure-F) as well as the order passed by the third respondent-Asst. Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, Doddaballapur dated 26/04/2017-(Annexure-E). Petitioner has also sought for cancellation of mutation entries and for conduct of fresh survey and podi in respect of the land bearing Sy. No.95/3 measuring 1 acre 30 guntas and Sy. No.95/5 measuring 1 acres 11 1/2 guntas with 4 guntas of Kharab and land bearing Sy. No.98/2 in all measuring 1 acre 5 guntas including 5 guntas of Kharab of Dasarahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk.
(2.) Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner's father Munithayappa was the elder brother of Nanjappa S/o Gaddeppa. Nanjappa had no children. Nanjappa and petitioner's father-Munithayappa constituted Hindu Undivided Joint Family. Nanjappa was the kartha of the joint family. Therefore, the revenue entries were mutated in his name. That in fact, one karahalli Nanjappa is the original propositus of the family. He had three sons by name Doddabachappa, Chikkabachappa and Thammanna. The first two sons have died. Thamanna had a son Gaddeppa and said Gaddeppa had sons by names Nanjappa and Munithayappa. As already stated, Nanjappa had no children and the petitioner is the son of Munithyappa.
(3.) That Chikkabachappa, had sold certain lands to one Nanjappa S/o Chikka Gaddeppa on 06/09/1943 in Sy. No.95/3 measuring 0.06 1/2 guntas out of 3 acres 22 guntas of Dasarahalli Village. That the remaining land in Sy. No.95/3 measuring 3 acres 11 1/2 guntas plus Kharab measuring 0.04 guntas remained with the family and similarly, Sy. No.98/2 measuring 1 acres 05 guntas were continued in the family possession. It appears that Subbanna, 5th respondent herein, mis-represented to the revenue authorities stating that he was son of Nanjappa S/o Gaddeppa. i.e., the petitioner's senior paternal uncle and got the khatha and revenue records in respect of two items of lands in his name in IHR No.27/49-50 dated 17/11/1949. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no such IHR available in the records. According to the petitioner, Subbanna S/o. late Nanjappa 5th respondent herein is only entitled to 6 1/2 guntas in Sy. No.95/3 but in IHR Proceedings, the entire extent of land was claimed. Similarly, in Sy. No.98/2, the claim was made to the entire extent in the alleged IHR No.27/49-50. That 5th respondent and his mother created a sale deed in favour of 7th respondent herein Smt. Subbamma, elder sister of the 5th respondent herein and her husband-Anjanappa, 8th respondent (since deceased) in respect of half extent of Sy. No.95/3 and 98/2 in the year 1958. But the possession of the land continued with the petitioner and his father. That in the year 2009, the petitioner became aware that the 5th respondent had colluded with revenue officials to got the land phoded without giving notice to the petitioner who was in possession. At that stage, the petitioner obtained mutation copies and came to know that Sy. No.95/3 was divided into two parts ie., 1 acre 30 guntas was mutated in the name of the 5th respondent herein and that an extent of 1 acres 29 guntas was mutated in the names of 6th and 7th respondents herein assigning Sy. No.95/5. According to the petitioner, 5th respondent had got katha changed and mutated in his name the lands in respect of 1 acre 30 guntas and the name of the 5th respondent had been entered vide M.R.No.22/07-08. Hence the petitioner filed an application for cancellation of the aforesaid mutation entries before the Asst. Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-division, Doddaballapur. But the Asst. Commissioner, rejected the same and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Revision Petition before the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore and the Deputy Commissioner, dismissed the revision petition by directing the petitioner to approach the Civil Court and avail the remedy. Being aggrieved by those orders, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.