Venkatreddy vs The Deputy Commissioner

Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.—Sri Shivakumar Tengli, the learned Additional Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Notice to the respondent No. 4 is dispensed with.

The petitioners have called into question the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner''s order, dated 25.09.2006 dismissing the revision petition directed against the second respondent Assistant Commissioner''s order dated 19.01.2004 passed in Appeal No. 45/2002-03.

Sri N. Krishnacharya, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners'' father, Venkat Reddy had been in possession of the land in question for the last 40 years till his death. After his death his legal representatives have been in possession, cultivation and enjoyment of the same. He submits that the legal representatives of the original petitioner have filed this petition. He submits that the mutation entry was effected by the revenue authorities even without there being any application for the condonation of delay by the fourth respondent. He submits that both the authorities namely Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner have found that the petitioners are in possession. Instead of asking the fourth respondent to approach the civil court, the said authorities have asked the petitioners'' father to approach the civil court.

Sri Shivakumar Tengli, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the revenue authorities have passed the orders for right reasons, as the petitioners/his legal representatives have not produced any registered document in their favour.

The first respondent - Deputy Commissioner has passed the order on 25.09.2006. The revision petitioner (the person under whom the petitioners claim) was very much alive for a period of one year after the passing of the impugned order. He died only on 28.09.2007. If he thought it fit not to challenge the Deputy Commissioner''s order, his legal representatives cannot challenge the impugned order with any rate of success, because the rights of the legal representatives cannot be better or higher than those of the party under whom they claim.

There is a long delay of 8 years in challenging the impugned order. The delay has not been satisfactorily and cogently explained.

The petitioners are challenging the Deputy Commissioner''s order. The Deputy Commissioner''s order only upholds the Assistant Commissioner''s order. Even if the Deputy Commissioner''s order is quashed, the Assistant Commissioner''s order would stare at the petitioners.

It is also trite that the entries in the record of rights do not create any rights in favour of anybody. They are only reflective of the accrual of the rights based on the registered documents or adjudication by a competent civil court. As the revision petitioner/his legal representatives are demanding that their names be entered in the revenue records based only on their possession, he/they are rightly relegated to the remedy of filing the suit before the civil court. This Court has held in a catena of decisions that the revenue authorities are not competent to decide the questions of title. Some of them are:

"1. S. Shivanna Vs. The Special Tahsildar and Others,

ILR 2011 KAR 4956 (Madappa v. The Deputy Commissioner and others)

Y.K. Suresh Kumar Vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner and Others,

C.N. Nagendra Singh Vs. The Special Deputy Commissioner and Others, "

For all the aforesaid reasons, I dismiss these petitions with one clarification. The mutation entry effected by the Assistant Commissioner and upheld by the Deputy Commissioner shall be subject to the outcome of the O.S. No. 22/2011 filed by the petitioners. Further, the civil court, where O.S. No. 22/2011 is pending, shall adjudicate the matter without being influenced by the orders passed by the revenue authorities. Subject to these clarifications and observations, these petitions are dismissed.

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri N. Krishnacharya requests that the entries be restored in favour of the revision petitioners. It is open to the petitioners to seek appropriate interim orders in O.S. No. 22/2011.

No order as to costs.