Smt Sukalatha and Others vs The Deputy Commissioner D.K. District, Mangalore and Others

K.L. Manjunath, J.—Notice to Respondents 4, 5 & 6 are dispensed with. I.A.No.1/2012 is filed to condone 77 days of delay in filing the appeal.

For the reasons stated in the affidavit, delay of 77 days in filing the appeal is condoned and accordingly, I.A.No.1/2012 is allowed.

The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is, whether the Deputy Commissioner is justified in directing the revenue authorities to enter the name of the Government in RTC extract in respect of 01 acre 72 cents of land in Sy.No.66/2 of Badaguli pady Village, Bantwal Taluk. Admittedly, the dispute is pending before the Land ribunal in regard to grant of occupancy rights in respect of the aforesaid land before the Land Tribunal, Bantwal Taluk and the Land Tribunal is recording the evidence. During the pendency of the matter before the Land Tribunal, the question that had come before the revenue authorities was in regard to the change of mutation entries. The Deputy Commissioner has stated that the revenue entries shall be continued in the name of the Government subject to the result of the Land Tribunal. This order was question by the appellant before the learned single Judge in W.P.No.24226/2009, which writ petition came to be dismissed on the ground that subject to the order of the Land Tribunal, any entry made in the revenue records will not take away the rights of the respective parties. With the said observation, writ petition is dismissed. Challenging the same, this appeal is filed. Having heard both sides, we do not see any reasons to interfere because the learned single Judge has clarified that in the event that the application Form No. 7 came to be dismissed, then naturally, the revenue entry shall be restored to the name of the appellants / landlords. Similarly, if the Land Tribunal grant occupancy rights, the revenue entries shall change to the name of the tenants.

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.