Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, D.S. Rajarao, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, challenging the endorsement dated 26.2.2010 passed by the Tahsildar, Doddaballapur, in No.RRT.CR.No.475/2009-10, which was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division, by order dated 11.2.2014 in RA.(DE):51/2010-11, and further confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, by order dated 20.5.2017 in RP.No.45/2014-15. The petitioner claimed to be a member of a joint family that owned several items of lands in Chikkasanne village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District. The property in question was land bearing Sy.No.6 of Chikkasanne village, measuring 1 acre 25 guntas. The petitioner sought to quash the impugned orders and direct the respondents to enter his name in the revenue records. The court noted that the petitioner had not produced any document to prove his exclusive title over the land. The revenue authorities had concurrently found that the petitioner failed to establish his ownership. The court held that the impugned orders did not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Land Law - Mutation of Revenue Records - Burden of Proof - The petitioner sought to quash the endorsement dated 26.2.2010 passed by the Tahsildar, confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner on 11.2.2014 and the Deputy Commissioner on 20.5.2017, rejecting his claim for mutation of his name in respect of Sy.No.6 of Chikkasanne village. The court held that the petitioner failed to produce any document to prove his exclusive title over the land, and the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities did not warrant interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 1-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned orders passed by the revenue authorities rejecting the petitioner's claim for mutation of his name in the revenue records are sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned orders are upheld.
Law Points
- Burden of proof
- Title to property
- Revenue records
- Concurrent findings
- Writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (03) 51
Writ Petition No.50158/2017 (KLR-RES)
Radhanandan B S (for petitioner), T.S.Mahantesh (AGA for respondents)
The Tahsildar, Doddaballapur; The Assistant Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-Division; The Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging revenue orders rejecting mutation of name in land records.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of the endorsement dated 26.2.2010 passed by the Tahsildar, confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner on 11.2.2014 and the Deputy Commissioner on 20.5.2017, and a direction to enter his name in the revenue records.
Filing Reason
Petitioner claimed to be a member of a joint family owning land in Sy.No.6 of Chikkasanne village, but his request for mutation was rejected by revenue authorities.
Previous Decisions
The Tahsildar passed an endorsement on 26.2.2010 rejecting the mutation claim; the Assistant Commissioner confirmed it on 11.2.2014; the Deputy Commissioner confirmed it on 20.5.2017.
Issues
Whether the petitioner has established his exclusive title over the land in question?
Whether the concurrent findings of the revenue authorities are perverse or arbitrary warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that he is a member of the joint family owning the land and sought mutation of his name.
Respondents contended that the petitioner failed to produce any document to prove his exclusive title over the land.
Ratio Decidendi
The petitioner failed to produce any document to prove his exclusive title over the land. The concurrent findings of the revenue authorities are not perverse or arbitrary, and therefore, no interference is warranted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioner herein is impugning the endorsement dated 26.2.2010 passed by the 1st respondent - Tahsildar, Doddaballapur, in No.RRT.CR.No.475/2009-10 vide Annexure-F, which is confirmed by the 2nd respondent – Assistant Commissioner by order dated 11.2.2014 in proceedings bearing No.RA.(DE):51/2010-11 vide Annexure – G and also by the 3rd respondent – Deputy Commissioner by order dated 20.5.2017 in RP.No.45/2014-15 vide Annexure-H.
Petitioner herein is member of the joint family which was owning several items of lands in Chikkasanne village, Devanahalli Taluk, Bengaluru Rural District.
Admittedly, the property in question is land bearing Sy.No.6 of Chikkasanne village, measuring to an extent of 1 acre 25 guntas.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on 15.3.2019, challenging the endorsement dated 26.2.2010 passed by the Tahsildar, which was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner on 11.2.2014 and by the Deputy Commissioner on 20.5.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
