Karnataka HC Restores Farmer’s 7-Acre-10-Gunta Mutation, Leaving Rival’s 30×40 Plot Claim For A Possible Civil Suit

The petitioner claimed to have purchased 7 acres 10 guntas in R.S. No. 42/3 under a registered sale deed dated 30 January 2024, after which the Tahasildar mutated his name in the revenue records.

Respondent No. 1, claiming to have purchased a 30’ x 40’ plot within that land, appealed against the mutation under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Assistant Commissioner set aside the mutation, reasoning that the petitioner’s vendor was entitled to only 6 acres, and referred the parties to the Civil Court; the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petitioner’s revision.

The petitioner challenged both orders, contending that the revenue authorities had exceeded their jurisdiction by deciding questions of title and entitlement.

Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 govern reporting, recording, certification, and objections to mutations; the prescribed officer may conduct an inquiry into objections, but revenue proceedings do not confer jurisdiction to decide complex questions of title, which must be adjudicated by a competent Civil Court.

Sections 136(2) and 136(6) provide the relevant appeal and revision proceedings concerning revenue entries, but do not authorize revenue authorities to determine title.

Section 25 preserves a Revenue Court’s inherent powers to make orders necessary for justice or to prevent abuse of process; it does not confer the powers of a Civil Court to determine title.

A registered instrument remains effective as to the rights it creates unless set aside by a competent court.

The Assistant Commissioner went beyond deciding the mutation dispute by comparing the grant order and revenue records, determining that the vendor’s entitlement was limited to 6 acres, and considering alleged violations relating to land use; the Deputy Commissioner repeated that reasoning.

Those matters involved determinations of title and entitlement beyond the revenue authorities’ jurisdiction, and Section 25 did not enlarge that jurisdiction.

The Court also found that the identified private dispute concerned respondent No. 1’s claimed 30’ x 40’ plot, not the petitioner’s entire 7 acres 10 guntas; no approved layout plan had been produced.

Any civil adjudication, if pursued, was therefore limited to the competing claims concerning that plot.

The petitioner’s restored revenue entries remain subject to the outcome of any civil suit; the parties’ competing claims to the 30’ x 40’ plot are likewise subject to such adjudication.