Karnataka HC Removes Joint Entry On Petitioner’s Partitioned Family Land, Orders Revenue Records To Follow Final Decree

A final decree in a partition suit allotted separate shares in Survey No. 429/1 to the petitioner and respondent No. 1, and recorded that they had been put in possession of their respective shares.

The shares were subsequently identified as Survey Nos. 429/1B (petitioner) and 429/1A (respondent No. 1), and the parties executed a registered partition deed on 18 June 2011. Respondent No. 1 later sold his share in Survey No. 429/1A.

The revenue authorities entered the petitioner and respondent No. 1 jointly in the mutation register for 1 acre 19 guntas 4 annas in Survey No. 429/1B.

The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed his revision under Section 136(3), reasoning that the parties’ rights concerning registered documents should be adjudicated by a civil court.

The petitioner challenged those orders and the mutation entry by writ petition.

Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, requires revenue authorities to make or alter entries when a person acquires a right in land, and the expression “or otherwise” includes a right arising under a civil court decree.

Under Section 132(3), revenue entries are to be made in accordance with a civil court’s decree or decision; the proviso to Section 135 contemplates amendment of the record or register to accord with a civil court’s declaration of rights.

A partition decree determines the parties’ rights in the property; Order XX Rule 18(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure expressly provides for a decree declaring the rights of parties in an estate assessed to government revenue.

Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, concerning declarations of rights as to property, was also considered relevant to the character of a partition decree.

The court identified no precedent as the basis for its decision.

The final decree had conclusively allotted separate shares and possession to the parties, and the registered partition deed and subsequent sale by respondent No. 1 were consistent with that division.

The petitioner did not ask the revenue authorities to determine the validity of the registered documents; he sought entries consistent with the civil court’s final adjudication.

Because the decree determined the parties’ rights, the revenue authorities were bound under the KLR Act to make the corresponding entries.

The joint entry for Survey No. 429/1B therefore contradicted the decree and registered partition, while the authorities’ reliance on the need for civil adjudication failed to address the relief actually sought.

It directed the authorities to enter the petitioner’s name for Survey No. 429/1B in accordance with the final decree dated 14 March 2011 and the registered partition deed dated 18 June 2011, while taking note of the sale deed dated 5 September 2011.

No order was made as to costs.