S G KENCHANA GOWDA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both these petitions are questioning the mutation entry bearing M.R. No. 7/1998-99 which are impugned at Annexures-F and D respectively in both the petitions. The petitioners claim right to the property in question to the land measuring 6 acres and 8 acres in each of the writ petitions; It is in that context, the petitioners in both these petitions claim to be aggrieved by the Mutation Order No. 7/1998-99.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that they are entitled to the said property which was the subject-matter of a civil litigation in R.S.A. No. 349 of 1968. Pursuant thereto, the mutation entries were changed to the names of the petitioners viz., 6 acres insofar as petitioners in W.P. No. 19892 of 2009 and 8 acres in respect of petitioners in W.P. No. 19893 of 2009. The said mutation entry was effected by the order passed by the Deputy Tahsildar in MR No. 2/1997-98. The petitioners claim that pursuant thereto they have been in enjoyment of the said property. The grievance of the petitioners at present is that the Revenue Inspector without providing opportunity to the petitioners, though their names were indicated in the revenue registers has passed a fresh Mutation Order No. 7/1998-99 ordering that the land in question be indicated in the name of the Government. In this regard a circular dated 23-4-1999 is relied on by the Revenue Inspector. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the said impugned entry in M.R. No. 7/1998-99 would contend that even if the said circular dated 23-4-1999 is kept in view, the same would not be applicable to the present lands since the right indicated therein is in respect of the inam lands. But, in the instant case, the petitioners contend that a portion of the land belonging to the petitioners had been dedicated in the name of their deity 'Pranadevaru' and therefore, it cannot be considered as inam land. In that context, it is contended that the mutation order in M.R. No. 2/1997-98 could not have been reversed and in any event, it could not be made without opportunity to the petitioners.

(3.) The learned Government Advocate however sought to justify the action by pointing out that the Revenue Inspector has merely acted based on the circular issued by the Government and therefore there cannot be any fault found with the mutation entry.