Karnataka Jesuit Educational Society vs Tahsildar and Others

Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J.—It appears, properties were taken by the petitioner, a society established under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 Several properties in various survey numbers situate at Kalena Agrahara, Begur Hobli, Bangalore South were purchased by the petitioner during 1956. Of course, it was also the subject matter before the Tribunal under the Mysore (Personal & Miscellaneous) Inams Abolition Act. It appears one Hemalath who is the 2nd respondent herein has given a representation to the Tahsildar to enter her name and change the entries. The grievance of the petitioner is, as per annexure A the entries made by the Village Accountant as approved by the Revenue Inspector is illegal and accordingly, it has challenged the same. In this regard, the petitioner moved the Assistant Commissioner in appeal. Since the Assistant Commissioner did not take any decision, they approached the Deputy Commissioner in revision contending that the registration of entries in the revenue records and changing the mutation records as at annexure A, as per S. 129(7) of the Land Revenue Act are two different aspects.

Heard the counsel representing the respective parties.

S. 129 of the Land Revenue Act deals with registration of mutation and Register of disputed cases. S. 129(7) provides for transfer of the entries from the Register of Mutations to the record of rights by following procedure. Of course, these are all aspects which are subject to appeals and revisions. S. 136(2) provides for appeal against the order of the Tahsildar in RTS proceedings or mutation or change of entries in the mutation records. Against the order of the-appellate authority viz., Assistant Commissioner, revision lies to the Deputy Commissioner under S. 136(3). Though making mutation entries and transferring those entries into the revenue records-might be different aspects, ultimately they are subject to appeal and revision. Petitioner, not being impressed with the order of the Assistant Commissioner moved revision before the Deputy Commissioner. In the fact situation, petitioner cannot simultaneously move this Court under writ jurisdiction. Since the Deputy Commissioner is a fact finding authority as against the order of the Assistant Commissioner in appeal, it is for the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner urging all contentions and it is for the Deputy Commissioner to hear and pass orders, according to law at the earliest. At this juncture, petitioner prays for retaining the entries in the records. However, since already stay has been granted by the Deputy Commissioner, it is for the petitioner to approach the Deputy Commissioner in this regard. Petitions are disposed of.