Dundappa Pattanshetty, Basavaraj Pattanshetty and Chandrakanth Pattanshetty vs The State of Karnataka and Others

V.G. Sabhahit, J.—This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum-respondent No. 4 dated 20/02/2001 as par Annexure "E" allowing the revision by setting aside the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Balgaum District, as par Annexure "D" dated 26/06/1999 and directing that the name of respondent No. 5 shall be entered in respect of his share in the survey records.

It is averred in the petition that the petitioners and respondent No. 5 are the sons of Sri Vishwanath Pattanshetty and Sri Vishvranath Pattanshetty during his life time, due to old age, appointed panchas for effecting partition amongst his sons. The panchas prepared a list dividing the properties amongst the petitioners and respondent No. 5 as per Annexure "B". The said Vishwanath Pattanshetty died in the year 1989 and the said partition as per Annexure "B" was not at all effected at any time. In the year 1996, respondent No. 5 made an application before the second respondent-Assistant Director of Land Records, to enter his name in the concerned records based on the said document Annexure "B" and the said application was rejected by order dated 20/08/1996. Being aggrieved by the said order, the fifth respondent filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Belgaum and the said appeal was allowed and remitted the matter to the Assistant Director of Land Records, Belgaum, After remand, the Assistant Director of Land Records passed an order as per Annexure "c" rejecting the application filed by the fifth respondent. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No. 5 filed revision before the Joint Director of Land Records-fourth respondent and the fourth respondent by order dated 20/02/2001 held that the partition made was not in accordance with law and shares have not been properly calculated and further held that the entries in respect of certain other properties had already made and accordingly allowed the Revision Petition and directed to enter the name of the fifth respondent in the concerned record.

Being aggrieved by the same, this writ Petition is filed.

It is clear from the perusal of the material on record that there is no dispute that the petitioner and respondent No. 5 are the sons of Vishwanath Pattanshetty and (sic) that Vishwanath Pattanshetty had appointed panchas for effecting partition and accordingly partition has been effected. The contention of the petitioners is that the share in the property allotted to the fifth respondent is in correct and the properties have not been equitably distributed among the children of Vishwanath Pattanshstty. It is clear from the perusal of the material on record that the entry in respect of some of the properties has already been effected. It is well settled that revenue authorities cannot go into the legality of the partition deed and as to whether the share that has been allotted is inequitable, as such question regarding title to the property has to be gone into by the civil Court of competent jurisdiction and under the circumstances, the direction issued to enter the name of the 5th respondent in respect of his share as par the partition deed does not suffer from any error or illegality as the names of the petitioners would also be entered as par their share in the partition deed and it is open to the petitioners to challenge the partition deed in the civil Court and obtain a declaration regarding partition deed if it is inequitable and shares have not been allotted in accordance with the dead as contended by the petitioners and any entry made will always be subject to the declaration that will be granted by the civil Court.

Under the circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order so as to call for interference in exercise of the power of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. However, it is made clear that any observation made by the Joint Director regarding validity of the partition deed would not be binding upon the civil Court as the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to go into the validity or legality of the partition deed and it is for the civil court of competent jurisdiction to decide the same in accordance with law when a suit is filed. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

The Writ petition is disposed of with the above said observations.