Judgment:
ORDER
A.S. Bopanna, J.
1. The petitioner is seeking for writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 23.4.2007 passed by the first respondent which is impugned at Annexure J.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the total extent of land in Sy. No. 15/2 of Budihal village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore rural district is an extent of 2 acres 32 guntas which was inam land. An extent of 28 guntas is said to have been registered to the name of Smt. Thimmakka under the proceedings of Inams Abolition Act. The said Thimmakka is none other than the mother-in-law of the petitioner. In addition to the said 28 guntas, the husband of the petitioner viz., Sri Kemparangaiah is said to have been in possession and cultivation of 28 guntas of land and as such the application in form No. 7 was filed before the Land Tribunal, Nelamangala. The said extent of 28 guntas is also said to have been granted by the Land Tribunal by its order dated 7.7.1981. In this regard, the petitioner claims the mutation entries in M.R. No. 136/72-73 and 32/1931-82- In that context, the petitioner contends that she is entitled to the total extent of 1 acre 16 guntas in Sy. No. 15/2.
3. The present grievance is that though this was the position, the fourth respondent claiming right to an extent of one acre 16 gnntas under the order passed by the Land Tribunal and an additional extent of 28 guntas under an order passed by the Inams Abolition Authority, is claiming right to the said extents In this regard, the fourth respondent is said to have secured mutation entries in his name. The fourth respondent in that regard was before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A (D) No. 36/2005-06 and the appeal filed by the fourth respondent was dismissed. The fourth respondent was therefore before the Deputy Commissioner in R.F. No. 105/2005-06. The Deputy Commissioner, after considering the rival contentions has set aside the mutation entries which were in favour of the petitioner and has directed the name of the fourth respondent to be indicated to the extent of the said 1 acre 16 guntas and also another extent of 28 guntas. The petitioner is therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the order dated 23.4.2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner is before this Court assailing the same.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend vehemently that in fact the petitioner and the fourth respondent are entitled to 1 acre 16 guntas each in the said survey No. 15/2 and instead, the fourth respondent has now claimed an extent of 1 acre 16 guntas under the order of the Land Tribunal and another extent of 28 guntas under the order of the Inams Abolition authority which is not sustainable. It is further contended that the very form No. 7 filed by the fourth respondent before the Land Tribunal would indicate that he had sought for occupancy right in respect of only 28 guntas and therefore the said extent only could have been granted by the Land Tribunal. Therefore, the fourth respondent can claim only 28 guntas under the order of the Land Tribunal and another 28 guntas under the order passed by the authority under the Inams Abolition Act, in all the total extent of one acre 16 guntas. II is further contended that the said position being clear, the parties had made a joint application dated 25.4.2005 before the Tahsildar and therefore, the fourth respondent cannot take any other stand at this juncture. The learned Counsel has contended that the landlord had made a statement before the Land Tribunal that the fourth respondent herein was entitled to the total extent of 1 acre 16 guntas which would mean that the same would include the said extent of 28 guntas which had been granted under the order passed by the Inams Abolition authority. It is therefore contended that the Deputy Commissioner overlooking all these aspects of the matter has wrongly come to the conclusion and therefore, the order is to be set aside.
5. Learned Counsel for the respondent would contend that the document produced at Annexure R. 1 along with the objection statement would indicate that an extent of 28 guntas has been granted to the fourth respondent by order dated 2.8.1963. In addition, reference is also made to the order of the Land Tribunal to indicate the extent granted therein is an extent of 1 acre and 16 guntas and in this regard form No. 10 has been issued under the document at Annexure-R.4 which Jndicates the extent, as 1 acre 16 guntas. Pursuant to the said orders, mutation order in M.R. No. 15/81-82 has been passed and the petitioner therefore cannot make any grievance in this regard.
6. Learned Government Advocate pointed out that the revenue authorities have only relied on the documents of title which have been relied. In the present case, the documents of title are none other than the order passed by the authorities under the Inams Abolition Act as well as the Tribunal under the Land Reforms Act and in any event, the revenue authorities cannot go beyond the same and as such the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner based on the documents available on record cannot be found fault with.
7. In the light of what has been contended, it is no doubt true as contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, a joint application dated 25.4.2005 has been made. In the said application, the extent as against each of the persons who have affixed their signature viz., the petitioner and the fourth respondent is indicated as 1 acre 16 guntas. But, the said documents at Annexure F is not admitted by the respondents. The correctness or otherwise of filing such joint application cannot be considered in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when there is a dispute with regard to the same and in any event the same cannot over-ride the other documents. Thus having excluded the said document this Court would have to notice the manner of right claimed by the parties for the purpose of seeking mutation orders as well as the entries. No doubt, as per the copy of form No. 7 which is said to have been filed by the fourth respondent, an extent of 28 guntas is indicated. However, it is not in dispute that the order passed by the Land Tribunal would indicate that an extent of 1 acre 16 guntas is granted to the fourth respondent and the document at Annexure R.4 viz., the form No. 10 wbich is issued pursuant to such an order passed by the Land Tribunal also indicates the extent of land made over to fourth respondent as 1 acre 16 guntas. The order passed by the authorities under the Inams Abolition Act granting 28 guntas to the fourth respondent is also not in dispute. Hence, in so far as the documentary evidence, which is available on record as of now would indicate that an extent at 1 acre 16 guntas has been indicated in the order passed by the Land Tribunal and another extent of 28 guntas is indicated in the order passed under the Inam Abolition Act in favour of the fourth respondent.
8. In that background, the question for consideration is as to whether the said extent of 28 guntas which was granted by the Inams Abolition authority has been excluded by the Land Tribunal while granting the entire extent of 1 acre 16 guntas and in that context, as to whether there is an error committed by the Land Tribunal. On this aspect, even if the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is accepted, considering the scope of the present litigation neither the Deputy Commissioner nor this Court can go into that question since this proceedings does not relate to the correctness or otherwise of the order of Land Tribunal. If at all there is an error committed by the Land Tribunal with regard to the extent of the property granted as against the extent indicated in form No. 7 and if it has affected the petitioner herein, it is for the petitioner to initiate appropriate action in accordance with law and as contemplated under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act and not in the present proceedJngs. In hat aspect of the matter is kept in view, the Deputy Commissioner has merely relied on the available documents and has come to the conclusion. At this stage, it cannot be said to be erroneous. As already noticed, if the petitioner is aggrieved, it is for him to approach the appropriate forum, get the matters rectified and thereafter approach the revenue authorities. If the petitioner succeeds in any such proceedings, it is needless to mention that in such event, if the petitioner approaches the revenue authorities armed with any other orders, the present order passed by the Deputy Commissioner will not come in the way of revenue authorities in considering the matter in accordance with law, after hearing of the parties concerned. In view of the above reasons, the order of the Deputy Commissioner which is impugned in the present petition does not call for interference.
In terms of the above, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.