R V GOPALAKRISHNA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is calling in question the order dated 30-8-2007 passed in R. Misc. No. 28 of 2005-06. THE said order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner and the same is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is the brother of late Gangadhar Menon. THE said Gangadhar Menon had owned an extent of 2 acres 19 guntas in Sy. No. 39 of Gavatur Village, Hosanagar Taluk. THE said land had been granted to him on 30-4-1986. Out of the said extent of land granted, Sri Gangadhar Menon during his lifetime had sold an extent of 28 guntas to the fourth respondent herein under a sale deed dated 28-5-2002. THE remaining extent is said to have been retained by the said Gangadhar Menon. When this was the position. Gangadhar Menon died on 27 -11 -2002. THE petitioner being the natural successor claims right to the property.

(3.) ON hearing the learned Counsel, a perusal of the orders passed by the authorities would no doubt indicate that both the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner have properly appreciated the fact that insofar as the right claimed under a Will, the Revenue Authorities would not have the jurisdiction to determine the rights and it would be within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. However, with regard to the mutation entry effected in the name of the fourth respondent in M.R. No. 7 of 2003-04, the Assistant Commissioner had set aside the same and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for consideration of all aspects of the matter. ON the other hand, the Deputy Commissioner has set aside that portion of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and has come to the conclusion that since M.R. No. 7 of 2003-04 was effected by the Tahsildar on securing the report from the Revenue Inspector and also following the procedure as contemplated under the Act and Rules, the mutation entry is to be retained and if the petitioner has any grievance, he would get the same adjudicated in a Civil Court. In the said circumstance, since the authorities have clearly understood the legal position that ultimately when right is to be decided by the Civil Court, the only question for consideration in that circumstance is as to whether the mode adapted by the Assistant Commissioner is the appropriate mode or as to whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified.