D.K. VINODA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the order dated 16.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Jud1ge in W.P. No.32154 of 2015 by which the petition was dismissed, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

(2.) The petitioner filed writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent -- the Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.166 of 2013-2014; order dated 04.03.2011 passed by the 3rd respondent -- the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.(S) No.153/2009-2010 and Mutation Register in M.R.No.6/2010-2011 dated 04.03.2011 issued by the 5th respondent -- the Revenue Inspector, Bangalore. The petitioner claims that her husband purchased 2 acres 25 guntas of land in Sy.No.39/1 situated at Raghuvana Palya Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk from one Thimmaiah under registered sale deed dated 28.11.1989. Thereafter as per M.R. No.3/1989-90, the name of the petitioner's husband -- K. Shantharaju was entered. Against the said entry in MR.No.3/1989-90, respondents 6 to 9 filed appeal before the 3rd respondent -- the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') on the ground that the mother of respondent No.6-Lakshmamma had purchased the land in Sy.No.39/1 to an extent of 1 acre 12 guntas under registered sale deed dated 10.10.1960. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 04.03.2011 allowed the appeal and set aside the mutation entry made in favour of the petitioner's husband to an extent of 1 acre 12 guntas and further directed that since Lakshmamma is deceased, the inheritance katha of the said extent of land shall be made in the names of the respondents 6 to 9. The petitioner states that having come to know of the order passed by the 3rd respondent -- the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner filed revision before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 23.03.2015 confirmed the order passed by the 3rd respondent -- the Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the revision of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the orders of both the 2nd and 3rd respondents, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition. The learned Single Judge by order under appeal dismissed the writ petition holding that in the facts and circumstances of the case the 2nd respondent -- the Deputy Commissioner was justified in confirming the order of the Assistant Commissioner, hence the petitioner is in appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the appeal papers.