Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sunil Chajed, claimed to be the owner of land measuring 1 acre and 4.08 guntas bearing Sy.No.91/1A. The Tahsildar, Bengaluru East Taluk, passed an order dated 13.11.2019 under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, directing mutation of the land in revenue records. Respondent No.3, Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited, challenged this order before the High Court in W.P. No.209/2020. The learned Single Judge, by order dated 01.10.2020, allowed the writ petition and quashed the Tahsildar's order. The appellant, who was not a party to the writ petition, filed this appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act. The Division Bench noted that the appellant was the owner of the land and had not been heard before the Single Judge. The court also observed that the mutation entry was made on 13.11.2019, and the writ petition was filed in 2020, but the Single Judge did not consider the aspect of limitation. The court held that the order of the Single Judge was unsustainable as it was passed without hearing the appellant and without considering the limitation issue. The appeal was allowed, the order of the Single Judge was set aside, and the order of the Tahsildar dated 13.11.2019 was restored. The court clarified that the mutation entry does not confer title and that the respondent No.3 is at liberty to file a civil suit to establish its title.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Mutation Entry - Section 140(2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Summary Proceedings - The Tahsildar's order directing mutation in revenue records is a summary proceeding and does not decide title. The Single Judge erred in quashing the order without considering that the respondent No.3 had not challenged the mutation entry within the period of limitation and that the appellant had not been heard. Held that the order of the Single Judge is set aside and the Tahsildar's order is restored. (Paras 1-6) B) Land Revenue - Limitation - Challenge to Mutation Entry - Section 140(2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - The mutation entry was made on 13.11.2019, but the writ petition was filed in 2020. The Single Judge did not consider the aspect of limitation. Held that the challenge to the mutation entry was barred by limitation. (Paras 2-6) C) Land Revenue - Right to be Heard - Section 140(2) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - The appellant, who claimed to be the owner of the land, was not made a party to the writ petition and was not heard before the Single Judge quashed the Tahsildar's order. Held that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Tahsildar under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, without considering the appellant's right to be heard and the limitation period for challenging the mutation entry.
Final Decision
The appeal is allowed. The order dated 01.10.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.209/2020 is set aside. The order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Tahsildar under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is restored. It is clarified that the mutation entry does not confer title and respondent No.3 is at liberty to file a civil suit to establish its title.
Law Points
- Section 140(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act
- 1964
- Mutation entry
- Right to be heard
- Limitation for challenging mutation
- Summary proceedings
- Civil suit remedy
