Full Judgment
1. The petitioners are the grand sons of Doddannaiah and sons of Pillappa, whereas the 1st respondent is the wife of Dodda Kakappa, the eldest son of the propositus-Doddannaiah. The genealogy is produced at Annexure-"B".
2. The family of the petitioners and the 1st respondent was a joint family and owned many properties including lands. Apart from other properties, the land bearing revision Sy. No.100/5 measuring 32 guntas was a service inam land attached to Nirganti service of Bellandur village and it was granted to the husband of the 1st respondent vides Order of the Assistant Commissioner in HOA(S):197/68-69 dated 05.11.1971. The said Dodda Kakappa, the husband of the 1st respondent died on 30.12.1997 and in the circumstances, the name of the 1st respondent was entered into the records of this property under a mutation entry I.H.C. 5/2003-04 produced at Annexure-"A".
3. It is the case of the petitioners that there was a partition amongst both the branches including the disputed lard, wherein the father of the petitioners i.e., Pillappa was granted 16 guntas of land and the 1st respondent was granted the remaining 16 quntas of land. It is under these circumstances that the petitioners aggrieved by the entry of the name of the 1st respondent in the records, filed an appeal to the 3rd respondent i.e.,
the Assistant Commissioner in Case No.R.A. 553/2006-07. The learned 3r respondent allowed the appeal by setting aside the mutation entry in favour of the 1st respondent and directed to enter the name of the petitioners to an extent of 16 guntas in the disputed land. The copy of this Order is produced at Annexure-"H". Aggrieved by this Order, the l4t respondent approached the 4th respondent i.e., the Special Deputy Commissioner in Revn. Petition No.120/2009-10. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Special Deputy Commissioner has set aside the Order of the Assistant Commissioner and held that the mutation entry in the name of the 1st respondent herein is legal and valid. Aggrieved by the Order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners approached this Court by way of this petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the learned Addl. Government Advocate.
5. It is contended that the disputed land was a service inam land and though it is importable estate, it does not mean that the persons cultivating the land as the co-parceners have no share in the property. On this aspect of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1982 Supreme Court 887 [Nagesh Bisto Desai v. Khando Tirmal Desai]. There is no second opinion about the principle laid-down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and it is well-established principle of law that the Order of grant endures to cha benefit of all the members of the family.
6. Now as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners, 16 guntas of the disputed land were given to the petitioners under the Partition Deed dated 05.10.1994 produced at Annexure-"C". It is a typewritten document and it is not a memorandum of past partition. Hence the document in fact requires the registration. Evan otherwise, for the ancillary purposes if this Partition Deed is looked into, in para 2 at page 2 of this Deed, some portion is erased in the document and two lines have been written fin and there is handwriting. So also, there is a mention that Pillappa, the father of the petitioners has given up his share by way of Sale to his alder brother-Dodda Kakappa and it is thereafter that there are some corrections and the words have been erased. The document appears to be tampered and there are insertion of some portion and erasure.
Considering these aspects, the learned Special Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision petition of the 1st respondent by setting aside the Order of the Assistant Commissioner.
7. When there are corrections and addition of sentences, without initial and where some sentences have been erased, it is not for the Revenue Authorities to decide as to whether there is any fabrication or otherwise and in such circumstances the ultimate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the civil Court, and in this context, the entry o:: the name of the 1st respondent in respect of the disputed land is just and proper. In the circumstances, I do not find any merit in the petition and it is accordingly dismissed.