K JAYAMMA Vs. TAHSILDAR ANEKAL TALUK ANEKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these batch of writ petitions, the prayer made by the petitioners is to direct the respondent 1-Tahsildar, Anekal Taluk, to enter the names of petitioners in the mutation register and record of rights in respect of schedule mentioned lands.

(2.) THE case of the petitioners are that they are residents of Jayanagar, Bangalore-11 and they are entitled to purchase agricultural lands under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act and there is no bar against them for purchasing agricultural land. The petitioners under various registered sale deeds registered on different dates which are detailed in the petition have purchased and on the basis of sale deeds they applied to first respondent to enter their names within the meaning of Sections 128 (4) and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the officer declined to enter their names. Therefore, the writ petitions are filed.

(3.) IT is contended by the learned Advocate Mr. Achar that without going into the validity of the sale deeds, once intimation of registration of sale is sent to the first respondent, it is their primary duty to enter the name in the register and they cannot avoid to perform the duty which is imposed on them by statute and law. In the statement of objections filed by the Government, it is contended that on receipt of J-form it is form of intimation of registering of sale deed the authorities found that the lands are Government lands and said lands were not granted to the vendors of petitioner. It appears respondent has submitted report in this connection to the Deputy commissioner to initiate action in connection with the bogus entries and they are pending consideration before the Deputy Commissioner. The Special Deputy Commissioner has already initiated proceedings by issuing notice to the vendor of the petitioner. It is further submitted that the entries are bogus entries found in the name of vendor of the petitioner and when the very same entries are subject-matter before the Deputy Commissioner the entry cannot be made in the mutation register. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it is submitted that the lands were granted to the predecessors of the vendor of petitioner decades back in 1935-36 and 1939-40. Necessary entries had been made in the revenue records and on the basis of revenue entries the petitioners have purchased lands in question from the vendors who are legal heirs of the original grantees.