JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court seeking a Writ of Mandamus to consider his
representation dtd. 5/8/2021 at Annexure-E wherein
he has sought for making of entries in respect of the
subject land on the basis of a registered sale Deed dtd.
8/10/1996 a copy whereof avails at Annexure-A. Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that ordinarily a
registered instrument has to be acted upon for making
entries taking its tenor with the face value, in the light of
Apex Court decision in PREM SINGH & ORS vs BIRBAL &
ORS . (2006) 5 SCC 353.
(2.)Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents opposes the petition contending that in
respect of the land admeasuring 03 Acres, already entry
has been mutated in MR No.34/2007-08 in terms of
Annexure-B and therefore, the claim in respect of
remaining land should be deemed to have been rejected.
The Petitioner has got an alternate remedy of appeal
under Sec. 126(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act, 1964 and therefore, he should be relegated to the
same. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the writ
petition.
(3.)Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, what transpires
is the mutation of entries in respect of 03 Acres of land;
however the claim for the remainder i.e., 02 Acres
having been not granted, there need not be a specific
order rejecting the claim, in so many words. If
Petitioner is aggrieved by non-mutation of entries in
respect of the remainder of the land, he is entitled to
prefer an appeal/revision as rightly contended by learned
AGA.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner either to prefer an appeal or the revision as the case may be.
Ordinarily, there is no limitation for invoking the revisional jurisdiction vide SRIMANMAHARAJA NIRANJANA JAGADGURU MALLIKARJUNA MURUGHARAJENDRA MAHASWAMY MATADIPATHY Vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, COORG, ILR 1986 KAR 1058.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.