- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:34492 WP No. 24320 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 24320 OF 2022 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT LAKSHMAMMA W/O LATE HUCHHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS 2. H NAGARAJU S/O LATE HUCHHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 3. B H SIDDAPPA S/O LATE HUCHHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS 4. B H SHIVANNA S/O LATE HUCHHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS ALL ARE RESIDING AT GANIGARA BEEDI, BANNUR TOWN 'T' NARASIPURA TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT-571 101 … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M J ALVA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE TAHSILDAR T NARASIPURA, T NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 101 Digitally signed by VIDYA G R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC:34492 WP No. 24320 of 2022 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB-DIVISION, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570 001 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE-570 001 4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR BANNUR HOBLI, BANNUR, 'T' NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 101 5. THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT BANNUR GRAMATHANA VILLAGE, BANNUR TOWN, 'T' NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 101 6. ARASE GOWDA S/O LATE SIDDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, 7. PRAKASH M S/O LATE MAYI GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS BOTH RESIDING AT M M ROAD, BANNUR TOWN, 'T' NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 101 8. SMT MEENAKSHI W/O LATE NAGARAJ S/O LATE SIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, GANIGARA BEEDI, BANNUR TOWN, 'T' NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 101 - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC:34492 WP No. 24320 of 2022 9. SIDDE GOWDA S/O LATE SIDDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, GANIGARA BEEDI, BANNUR TOWN, 'T' NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT-571 101 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. C.N. MAHADESHWARAN, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI S. VISWESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R6 TO R9) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO.RP 90/2019 (RD 005-0000227334) PASSED BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSORE DISTRICT, MYSORE/R3 WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS W.P. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has filed the present writ petition calling in question the correctness of the order dated 20.09.2022 passed in R.P.No.90/2019 by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore, a copy of which is produced at Annexure-'A' and consequently has sought for affirmation of the order at Annexure-'B' dated 13.03.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore in R.A.No.473/2017. - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC:34492 WP No. 24320 of 2022 2. The relevant facts for the present purpose are that the petitioners claim to be the owners in possession and enjoyment of the land measuring 0-28.08 guntas bearing Survey No.581/1, situated at Bannur Village, T.Narasipura Taluk, Mysore District, having acquired the title under inheritance and succession through Sri Huchhe Gowda, who is stated to have passed away on 15.06.1995. 3. It is submitted that Sri Huchhe Gowda had purchased the schedule property through the Sale Deed dated 12.04.1970. It is further submitted that mutation entries were effected in the name of Sri Huchhe Gowda as per M.R.No.19/1970-71 and the revenue entries have been entered in the RTCs, copy of which is produced at Annexure-C1. 4. It is submitted that consequent to the demise of Huchhe Gowda on 15.06.1995, the petitioners have become the absolute joint owners in possession of the property in question. - 5 - NC: 2023:KHC:34492 WP No. 24320 of 2022 5. It is further submitted that the respondents had got cancelled M.R.No.19/1970-71 standing in the name of Huchhe Gowda and got included their names. 6. It is submitted that the petitioners after having come to know of the inclusion of names of respondent Nos.6 to 8 have eventually instituted the proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 before the Assistant Commissioner. It is submitted that the Assistant Commissioner as per the order at Annexure-'B' dated 13.03.2019 had rightly set aside the entries made in the name of respondent Nos.6 to 8 and directed the restoration of mutation in the name of petitioners as was earlier standing in the name of Sri Huchhe Gowda. 7. It is submitted that the Assistant Commissioner has rightly noticed that the entry in the name of Sri Huchhe Gowda was pursuant to the Sale Deed and the alleged entry in I.N.H. 29/1988-89 in the name of the respondents was on the basis of alleged oral partition with - 6 - NC: 2023:KHC:34492 WP No. 24320 of 2022 respect to which there was no supporting material available on record. 8. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order of Assistant Commissioner dated 13.03.2019 requires to be affirmed and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is required to be set aside. 9. It is submitted that the Deputy Commissioner, by order dated 20.09.2022 at Annexure-'A' has merely stated that the entry in the name of respondent Nos.6 to 8 was about 20 years back and the said entry could not be interfered with after such lapse of time. 10. It is submitted that there is no legal reason to support such conclusion and the order of Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-'A' dated 20.09.2022 requires to be set aside. 11. Perused the order at Annexure-'B' dated 13.03.2019 passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the order at Annexure-'A' dated 20.09.2022 passed by the - 7 - NC: 2023:KHC:34492 WP No. 24320 of 2022 Deputy Commissioner. The order of Assistant Commissioner is clear and the Assistant Commissioner has narrated the execution of Sale Deed dated 12.04.1970 in favour of Huchhe Gowda and further, the Assistant Commissioner, taking note of the said Sale Deed has then gone on to examine the basis of entry in I.N.H. 29/1988- 89 and it is observed that there is an entry in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 8 which was hand written and that there was no material to support the making of entry in I.N.H.29/1988-89 and accordingly, the Assistant Commissioner has held that no grounds are made out to allow the continuance of entry in I.N.H. 29/1988-89 and has then proceeded to hold that the entry is to be restored in the name of Sri Huchhe Gowda as was existing, while setting aside the entry in the name of respondent Nos.6 to 8 in I.N.H.29/1988-89. The Deputy Commissioner, after having narrated the details has merely set aside the order of Assistant Commissioner on the sole ground that the Khatha in the name of respondent Nos.6 to 8 was effected about 20 years back and the revenue authorities have no - 8 - NC: 2023:KHC:34492 WP No. 24320 of 2022 power after such delay to interfere with such order. Such grounds made out by the Deputy Commissioner are not backed by any legal position and mere delay in seeking to set aside the entry cannot result in appeal before the Assistant Commissioner not being maintainable. The aspect of condonation of delay is left to be decided upon depending upon the facts and circumstances that are made out. 12. The order of the Assistant Commissioner at Annexure-'B' dated 13.03.2019 upholding the entry passed on the Sale Deed dated 12.04.1970 requires to be upheld. In fact, the Assistant Commissioner has pointed out that he has also examined the records relating to I.N.H.29/1988-89 and has recorded a finding that there are only hand written entries relating to I.N.H.29/1988-89 and there are no supporting material. If that were to be so, the setting aside of the entry in favour of respondent Nos.6 to 8 is completely justified and its setting aside by the Deputy Commissioner calls for interference. - 9 - NC: 2023:KHC:34492 WP No. 24320 of 2022 Accordingly, the order at Annexure-'A' dated 20.09.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is set aside and the findings recorded by the Assistant Commissioner are upheld. Accordingly, the petition is disposed off. Sd/- JUDGE VGR