Petitioners Excluded From Ashraya-Scheme Land Mutation Appeal Get Fresh Hearing as Karnataka HC Sets Aside Revenue Orders

In brief

The question

1. Whether the mutation order could stand when the petitioners, who claimed an interest in the lands, had not been made parties to the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner.

The court held

The writ petition was allowed.

It also directed

The orders dated 19 June 2009 and 27 August 2014 were set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Assistant Commissioner, Ballari, for fresh consideration after issuing notice to all concerned parties and deciding the matter in accordance with law.

No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

The dispute concerned mutation entries relating to lands in Sy. Nos. 152A/1, 152C/1 and 152C/2 at Tambrahalli Village.

¶ 5–7

In 1992, the Government acquired by purchase 0.15 acres in Sy. No. 152A and 1.85 acres in Sy. No. 152C for the Ashraya Scheme; the survey lands were later subdivided, giving rise to a dispute over the identity and possession of particular portions.

¶ 5–7

The Assistant Commissioner allowed respondent No. 5’s appeal and directed mutation in his favour. The petitioners challenged that order before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964; the revision was dismissed.

¶ 2

They then sought to quash both orders, contending that they had not been made parties to the Assistant Commissioner’s proceedings.

¶ 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the mutation order could stand when the petitioners, who claimed an interest in the lands, had not been made parties to the proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner.

¶ 4, 8

ii.2. Whether the High Court could determine, in writ jurisdiction, the identity of the disputed land and the precise portions attributable to the parties.

¶ 9

03Law Applied

Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 provides the revisionary route invoked by the petitioners against the revenue order.

¶ 2

In exercising its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court may set aside revenue orders where affected parties were not given an opportunity to participate, but it will not determine disputed questions of fact concerning land identity and the exact portions falling to the parties’ shares.

¶ 8–9

No judicial precedent was cited.

Provisions in the judgment · 1

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 Section 136

04Reasoning

The Court found a valid basis for the petitioners’ objection because they had not been joined in the Assistant Commissioner’s proceedings, although the resulting mutation concerned lands in which they asserted an interest.

¶ 8

The Court also noted that the original survey lands had been subdivided after the Government’s 1992 purchase and that the parties disputed the identity and possession of the relevant portions.

¶ 5–7

Since those factual disputes could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction, the appropriate course was to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter for reconsideration after notice to all concerned, including the petitioners.

¶ 9