Karnataka HC Upholds Land-Record Entry For Woman Claiming To Be Widow Of Man Dead Since 1955, Bars Alienation Pending Suit

Respondent No. 4 claimed to be the wife of Kallappa Kotabagi and sought mutation of her name in the revenue records for three lands.

The Assistant Commissioner rejected her request; the Deputy Commissioner set that order aside and directed mutation, subject to the outcome of respondent No. 4’s pending civil suit, O.S. No. 65/2022.

The petitioners challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order, arguing that respondent No. 4’s relationship to Kallappa was unproved and that any claim to the lands should be determined in the civil suit.

Respondent No. 4 relied on a survival certificate, identity and ration cards, and a hakku patra as evidence of her claimed relationship.

The judgment identifies no specific statutory provision or precedent as the basis for its decision.

It applies the principle that, in reviewing a revenue authority’s mutation order, the court may consider whether the order is unsupported by material or perverse; the genuineness of documents and the parties’ substantive rights may be left to the competent civil court where those matters are in issue.

A revenue entry made pending such civil adjudication may be expressly made subject to the suit’s outcome.

The Deputy Commissioner had considered documents that consistently described respondent No. 4 as Kallappa’s wife, and the court found that the order was therefore not without material evidence or perverse.

The court did not determine whether those documents were genuine or finally resolve respondent No. 4’s claimed status; it left those questions to be considered in O.S. No. 65/2022.

Because the mutation was expressly subject to that suit, the court found no error warranting interference.

To address the risk of alienation pending adjudication, it restrained respondent No. 4 from alienating the lands or creating third-party rights.

It directed respondent No. 4 not to alienate any portion of the lands or create third-party rights until O.S. No. 65/2022 is decided; the revenue entries remain subject to the outcome of that suit.

All contentions were left open, and the civil suit is to be decided without being influenced by the writ petition’s disposal.