Writ Petition No. 3166 of 2020 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16944 WP No. 3166 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 3166 OF 2020 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1 . B. RANGASWAMY S/O BHEEMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, 2 . B.THIPPESWAMY S/O BHEEMPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS AGRICULTURIST, BOTH PETITIONSERS ARE RESIDING AT GANGIGATTA VILLAGE JANUKONDA MAJURE, PANDARAHALLY POST-577555 KASABA HOBLI, CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT. (BY SRI. B.M.SIDDAPPA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, CHITRADURGA-577501. 2 . THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CHITRADURGA SUB-DIVISION, CHITRADURGA-577501. Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …PETITIONERS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16944 WP No. 3166 of 2020 3 . THE THASILDHAR CHITRADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA-577501. 4 . MASTHAMMA W/O RANGAPPA AT SANNA RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS RESIDING AT GANJIGATTE VILLAGE, JANUKONDA MAJURE PRESENTLY R/AT SANNAIANA HATTY, HOLALKERE TALUK-577526 CHITRADURGA DISTRICT 5 . GEETHA W/O RAMESH AT SANNA RANGAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O N.G.HALLY MAJURE, SANNAIANA HATTY, N.G.HALLY POST, RAMAGIRI HOBLI, HOLALKERE TALUK-577526 CHITRADURGA.
Legal Reasoning
(BYSMT. SAVITHRAMMA., AGA FOR R-1 TO R-3; SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY.M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R-4 & R-5) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED 08.01.2020 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-T TO THE W.P. AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 DATED 02.02.2018 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-S TO THE W.P., ETC. THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR FOR ORDERS ON PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: 25.03.2025, COMING ON CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16944 WP No. 3166 of 2020 CAV ORDER 1. This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ("the Act") and also the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act, by which the revenue entries mutated in favour of the petitioners in an inheritance proceedings were cancelled. 2. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. The petitioners contend that their father Bheemappa had acquired 2 acres of land in Sy.No.90/2 of Janakonda Village under a registered Sale Deed dated 11.10.1972 from one Bommappa and his son Sanna Rangappa. They also contend that 2 acres that their father had purchased was a portion of total extent of 9 acres 27 guntas of land in Sy.No.90/2. The petitioners also contend that an extent of 2 acres 20 guntas of land had been sold by Bommappa and his son in favour of Ramappa on 25.11.1971. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16944 WP No. 3166 of 2020 4. The petitioners, however, contend that there was a registered Partition Deed between the petitioners’ father Bheemappa and his brothers and children by means of a registered Partition Deed dated 30.06.1995 and under this partition, the petitioners’ father Bheemappa was also allotted 5 acres 22 guntas and on the basis of this registered Partition Deed, mutation was registered in favour of the petitioners’ father – Bheemappa vide MR.28/1999-00. It is contended that on the death of their father Bheemappa, the Revenue Authorities accepted the request of the petitioners to mutate their names in the revenue record vide MR.IHC.37/2011-12. 5. It is contended that this order of mutation in favour of petitioners’ father Bheemappa and his brothers was challenged by respondents 4 and 5 in the year 2014 and this appeal has been allowed even though there was no application filed for condonation of delay and the order passed by the Appellate Authority has been confirmed incorrectly by the Deputy Commissioner and as a result, the petitioners are before this Court. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16944 WP No. 3166 of 2020 6. The facts as could be ascertained from the pleadings and documents are rather clear. A Sale Deed was executed in favour of Bheemappa, the father of the petitioners on 11.10.1972. The Sale Deed which is produced at Annexure-A indicates that an extent of 2 acres was purchased out of total extent of 6 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.90/2. It is therefore clear that the father of the petitioners had only title to an extent of 2 acres of land in Sy.No.90/2, but, under the Partition Deed between Bheemappa and his brothers, an extent of 5 acres 22 guntas had been allotted to Bheemappa. 7. Obviously, Bheemappa could have been allotted only 2 acres of land in Sy.No.90/2 and could not have been allotted 5 acres 22 guntas. In effect, under the Partition Deed, he has acquired 3 acres 22 guntas more than what he purchased under the Sale Deed dated 11.10.1972. The Revenue Authorities having taken note of this particular fact have come to the conclusion that mutation on the basis of Partition Deed cannot be sustained since Bheemappa had title only to an extent of 2 acres as per the khatha standing in his name and the mutation can be - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16944 WP No. 3166 of 2020 made only to an extent of 2 acres and not more than 2 acres. This order has been confirmed in revision. Obviously, the reasoning of the Deputy Commissioner that Bheemappa had acquired 5 acres 22 guntas in a partition while he had only acquired 2 acres in Sy.No.90/2 cannot be found fault with. 8. However, B.M.Siddappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks to put forth the contentions that the order of mutation passed in the year 1999-2000 was challenged nearly 16 years after the said order was passed in 2014 and there was not even an application filed for condonation of delay and consequently, the appeal itself was not maintainable. He places reliance on the proviso to Rule 16 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules (“the Rules”) to contend that if an appeal which has been filed belatedly is not accompanied by an application for condonation of delay, the appeal would have to be mandatorily dismissed in limine. But in the instant case, the Assistant Commissioner has entertained the appeal and therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority is incorrect. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16944 WP No. 3166 of 2020 9. He places reliance on the following judgments to contend that it is absolutely necessary that an application for condonation of delay is required to be filed whenever the appeal is preferred under Section 136(2) of the Act and the exercise of power by the Revisional Authority can only be done within a reasonable time: (i) Jayamma & Ors v. The State of Karnataka, ILR 2020 KAR 1449 (II) Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka & Anr, (2020) 14 SCC 232 (III) Sri Chetan Kumar v. The Deputy Commissioner & Anr, W.P. No. 21895 of 2024 (iv) Smt. Akkayamma v. The State of Karnataka & Anr, W.A No. 1081 of 2023 (SC-ST) 10. The provision relating to filing of an appeal under sub- section (2) of Section 136 of the Act reads as under: “136. Appeal and Revision.- (1) **** (2) Any person affected by an order made under sub-section (4) or an entry certified under sub- section (6) of section 129 may, within a period of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16944 WP No. 3166 of 2020 sixty days from the date of communication of the order or the knowledge of the entry certified, appeal to such officer as may be prescribed by the State Government in this behalf and his decision shall be final.” 11. As could be seen from sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act, an appeal can be filed within a period of 60 days either from the date of communication of the order or the date on which the appellant acquires knowledge of the entries certified. Therefore, the starting point of limitation for invoking Section 136(2) of the Act is from the date on which the order mutating the names under Section 129(6) of the Act are made or from the date on which the appellant acquires knowledge of the certified mutation entry in the revenue records. 12. It is the case of respondents 4 and 5 that they were not notified about the mutation made by the Tahsildar on the basis of Partition Deed, since they were in the native village. In fact, it is stated as follows in paragraph 8 of their objections: “8. It is submitted that in the year 1971 Bommappa has sold 2 acres 22 guntas in favour of one - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16944 WP No. 3166 of 2020 Ramappa S/ o Goddaramappa and in the year 1972 has sold 1 acre in favour of one Ramappa S/ o Mudiramappa. It is submitted that Bommappa has only one son Viz., Rangappa @ Sannarangappa who predeceased his father on 18-7-1976. The said Bommappa was aged was rustic villager he was not in a position to look after the agricultural activities. Hence the said Bommappa left his native place Gangikhatti and started residing in Sannayyanahalli with his daughter in law i.e., 5th respondent parents' house. Due to ill health and old age he died on 10-2-1984. The respondents No.4 and 5 were not aware of the mutation proceedings as per Annexure-C and D and related revenue proceedings. They are under the impression that the revenue entries in respect of the land in question was standing in the name of their father-in-law viz., Bommappa. In the year 2014 the 5threspondent came to know that the petitioners and their father taking advantage of the fact that Bommappa was not residing in the village got their name mutated in the revenue records by suppressing the material fact and by producing false document.” 13. As could be seen from the above, respondents 4 and 5 were not aware of the mutation proceedings and as soon as they came to know about the same, they preferred an appeal. In light of these pleadings, it is clear that the - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16944 WP No. 3166 of 2020 second portion of the proviso i.e., from the date of knowledge of the certified mutation entry would be the starting point of limitation. 14. Insofar as the appeal filed by respondents 4 an 5 are concerned, if an appeal is filed by them on the premise that there was no delay at all and they had filed within 60 days from the date on which they were aware of the order, the question of appeal being accompanied by an application for condonation of delay will not arise. Consequently, the argument that no application was filed for condonation of delay and therefore, the appeal filed was not maintainable cannot be accepted. 15. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners can also have no application simply because they were the cases in which the factual situation were different and the Court on interpretation of Rule 16 of the Rules has held that an application for condonation of delay was necessary. 16. As noticed above, an appeal can be preferred under Section 136(2) of the Act within 60 days from the date of knowledge and therefore, if an appellant says he became - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16944 WP No. 3166 of 2020 aware of an order on a particular later date and files an appeal within 60 days from that day, the question of there being a requirement to file an application for condonation of delay would not arise. In that view of the matter, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners would be of no relevance to the facts and circumstances in the present case. 17. To reiterate, since the father of the petitioners had acquired only 2 acres under a registered Sale Deed, the mutation made after the Partition Deed, by which 5 acres 22 guntas were allotted to Bheemappa and further mutation on the death of Bheemappa in favour of petitioners cannot be legal and valid and consequently cannot be sustained and the Revenue Authorities were therefore justified in setting aside the same. I, therefore,
Decision
find no reason to entertain this petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE PKS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 149