Karnataka HC Upholds Rejection Of 35-Year-Late Appeal Against 1974 Land-Record Entry Naming Government, Filed Under Wrong Act

In brief

The question

Whether an appeal under Section 118(2-B) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, lay against the mutation entry made under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

The court held

The appeal under Section 118(2-B) was not maintainable, and the petitioners could not use it to avoid the limitation applicable under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

It also directed

The Court found no ground to interfere with the Assistant Commissioner’s order and dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.

01Facts

The petitioners challenged Mutation Entry No. 5266, by which the Government’s name was entered in the revenue records for the lands in question.

¶ 3–5, 7

They appealed to the Assistant Commissioner under Section 118(2-B) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961; the appeal was rejected on 9 December 2016.

¶ 3–5, 7

The petitioners then filed this writ petition.

¶ 3–5, 7

They argued that the rejection of an application for occupancy rights showed that the lands had not vested in the State under Section 44 of that Act.

¶ 3–5, 7

02Issues

i.Whether an appeal under Section 118(2-B) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, lay against the mutation entry made under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶ 7–10

ii.Whether the petitioners could challenge the 1974 mutation entry through an appeal filed in 2009, despite the 60-day limitation under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

¶ 9–11

iii.Whether rejection of an application for occupancy rights established that the lands had not vested in the State under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.

¶ 5–6

03Law Applied

Section 118(2-B) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, provides for appeals from orders passed by the Tahsildar under that Act.

¶ 7

Entries in the Register of Mutations are governed by Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; an appeal against an order under Section 129(4) or a certified entry under Section 129(6) lies under Section 136(2) to the prescribed appellate officer, within 60 days from communication of the order or knowledge of the certified entry.

¶ 8–9

The rejection of one person’s claim for occupancy rights does not, by itself, establish that land was not tenanted or that statutory vesting under Section 44 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act did not occur.

¶ 6

Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens

KARNATAKA LAND REFORMS ACT, 1961 Section 44 Section 118

04Reasoning

The Court found that Mutation Entry No. 5266 merely changed the revenue records to show the Government in place of the erstwhile occupant or owner; it did not purport to be an order under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act.

¶ 8–10

The entry was therefore governed by Section 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, and the prescribed appeal under Section 136(2)—not Section 118(2-B) of the Land Reforms Act—was the applicable remedy.

¶ 8–10

Further, the 1974 entry was challenged only in an appeal filed in 2009, well beyond the statutory 60-day period.

¶ 6, 11

The Court also held that rejection of an occupancy-rights claim did not establish that the land had not vested in the State.

¶ 6, 11

05Holding

The appeal under Section 118(2-B) was not maintainable, and the petitioners could not use it to avoid the limitation applicable under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

¶ 10–12

The Court found no ground to interfere with the Assistant Commissioner’s order and dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.

¶ 10–12

LawLens.Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF