AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H. Billappa, J.—In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question, the order dated 22.2.2013, passed by the first respondent in case No. RA/CR-39/2011-12 vide Annexure-F and also has sought for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to enter the name of the petitioner in the mutation register in respect of six guntas of land in Sy. No. 13/1 of Mahajenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Harihara Taluk. By the impugned order at Annexure-F, the first respondent has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner confirming the order passed by the second respondent and has directed to forfeit the land of the petitioner.
Aggrieved by that, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
Briefly stated the facts are;
The petitioner claims that he has purchased six guntas of land in Sy. No. 13/1 of Mahajenahalli, Kasaba Hobli, Harihara Taluk, through registered sale deed dated 29.5.2003. The petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land. The third respondent has rejected mutation on the ground that the land in question is a site. The petitioner has preferred an appeal before the second respondent. The second respondent, by order dated 29.8.2011, has dismissed the appeal on the ground in the year 2003-04 mutation has been rejected on the ground that the land in question is a site and proper reasons are not given to condone the delay. The petitioner has preferred revision petition before the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent by order dated 22.2.2013 has rejected the revision petition confirming the order passed by the second respondent. Therefore, this writ petition.
The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. He also submitted that the petitioner has purchased six guntas of land in Sy. No. 13/1 of Mahajenahalli and he is in possession and enjoyment of the land. The third respondent has rejected mutation without any notice to the petitioner on the ground that the land in question is a site. The second respondent has rejected the appeal on the ground in the year 2003-04 mutation has been rejected on the ground that the land in question is a site and delay is not properly explained. The first respondent has confirmed. the order passed by the second respondent without considering the records and has directed to forfeit the land which is totally incorrect. He also submitted that the land in question is an agricultural land and without any valid reason the mutation has been rejected. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
As against this, the learned Government Pleader supported the impugned orders.
I have carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties.
The point that arises for my consideration is:
Whether the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 to 3 can be sustained in law?
The petitioner has purchased 6 guntas of land in Sy. No. 13/1 of Mahajenahalli. He is in possession and enjoyment of the land. The third respondent has rejected mutation on the ground that the land in question is a site. The second respondent has rejected the appeal on the ground that in the year 2003-04 mutation has been rejected on the ground that the land in question is a site and the delay is not properly explained. The first respondent has confirmed the order passed by the second respondent. None of the authorities i.e., respondents 1 to 3 have considered the sale deed properly. The sale deed Annexure-A shows that 6 guntas of land in Sy. No. 13/1 of Mahajenahalli has been purchased by the petitioner. The RTC entries show that the land in question is an agricultural land. The respondents 1 to 3 have not considered this Without considering sale deed and RTC entries properly the respondents 1 to 3 have passed orders at Annexures ''C'' ''E'' and ''F''. They cannot be sustained in law.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and Annexures-C, E and F are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to the third respondent with a direction to reconsider the matter, in accordance with law, by giving opportunity to the petitioner and in the light of the observation made in the course of this order.