Revenue authorities cannot supersede an unchallenged mutation without first setting it aside.

The dispute concerned 1 acre 14 guntas in Survey No. 112/2A.

The petitioners claimed that an oral partition among three brothers had allotted this land to Shivappa, their husband and father, and that Mutation Entry (M.E.) No. 1670, dated 19 May 1984, recorded the partition.

Although the entry was reflected in the RTC for another parcel allotted to Shivappa, it was not carried into the RTC for Survey No. 112/2A, where Basappa’s name remained.

After Basappa’s death, his legal representatives obtained M.E. No. 2082 recording their names for the disputed land.

The Assistant Commissioner set aside that entry and directed that the petitioners’ names be entered in accordance with M.E. No. 1670.

On revision, the Deputy Commissioner set aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order and restored M.E. No. 2082, leaving the parties to pursue title before a civil court.

The petitioners challenged the Deputy Commissioner’s order

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified in setting aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order and restoring M.E. No. 2082, given the earlier, unchallenged M.E. No. 1670 recording the partition.

2. Whether the competing claims to ownership required adjudication by a civil court, and what effect that had on the revenue entries.

The Court considered Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, under which the Assistant Commissioner’s order had been challenged before the Deputy Commissioner.

It applied the principle that revenue authorities deal with revenue entries and do not finally determine title to immovable property; a party claiming ownership must seek adjudication by the competent civil court.

The Court also held that, while an earlier mutation entry remains unchallenged and has not been set aside through the prescribed process, a subsequent entry should not be made on the basis merely that the earlier entry was not carried into the RTC for the disputed parcel.

Revenue entries remain subject to the outcome of civil proceedings.

The Court found that M.E. No. 1670 recorded the oral partition and the respective allotments, and that the entry had not been challenged or set aside.

The omission to carry that entry into the RTC for Survey No. 112/2A did not, by itself, justify entering Basappa’s legal representatives’ names through M.E. No. 2082.

Although the Deputy Commissioner was correct that the competing title claim could be pursued before a civil court, the Court held that he erred in setting aside the Assistant Commissioner’s order and restoring M.E. No. 2082 in respect of the disputed land.

M.E. No. 2082 was set aside only insofar as it related to Survey No. 112/2A, measuring 1 acre 14 guntas, and the Tahsildar was directed to enter the petitioners’ names in accordance with M.E. No. 1670 and the Assistant Commissioner’s direction.

The respondents claiming through Basappa were left at liberty to seek adjudication of their rights before the civil court; all parties’ contentions were reserved, and the revenue entries were made subject to any civil dispute.