Facts
The petitioner challenged mutation entries in M.R. Nos. H:53/2022-23 and H:42/2021-22 and consequential RTC extracts relating to land it claimed to have purchased under a registered sale deed dated 17 April 2006.
Source reference: paras. 1, 3, 7; pp. 4–7The sale deed recorded that the land had been converted to non-agricultural use by an order dated 30 April 1999.
Source reference: paras. 1, 3, 7; pp. 4–7The petitioner argued, among other things, that the revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to alter the entries and had acted without giving it a hearing.
Source reference: paras. 3–4; pp. 5–6Respondent No. 12 submitted that a civil suit instituted by the petitioner challenging registered sale deeds and related mutation entries was pending.
Source reference: paras. 5–6; pp. 6–7Issues
1. Whether the Tahsildar had jurisdiction to make the impugned mutation entries in respect of land converted to non-agricultural use.
Source reference: paras. 7–9; pp. 7–92. Whether the pending civil proceedings precluded the petitioner from obtaining relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Source reference: paras. 5–6; p. 6Law Applied
The Court relied on the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and the Division Bench ruling in J.M. Narayana and others v. Corporation of the City of Bangalore by its Commissioner, Office, Bangalore and others, ILR 2005 KAR 60.
Source reference: para. 8; p. 8That decision held that the Act does not apply to land converted to non-agricultural use by the competent authority and falling within a municipal corporation’s jurisdiction, because such land ceases to be agricultural land for the purposes of the Act.
Source reference: para. 8; p. 8Reasoning
The Court found that the petitioner’s sale deed recorded a competent authority’s non-agricultural conversion order, which had not been challenged.
Source reference: paras. 7, 9; pp. 7–8Applying J.M. Narayana, it concluded that the revenue authority lacked jurisdiction to make the impugned mutation entries in respect of the converted land.
Source reference: paras. 8–9; pp. 8–9Although respondent No. 12 relied on pending civil proceedings, the Court’s stated basis for granting relief was the revenue authority’s lack of jurisdiction.
Source reference: paras. 5–6; p. 6Holding
The Court answered the jurisdictional issue in the negative.
The High Court allowed the writ petition.
Source reference: para. 10; p. 9It set aside the mutation entries in M.R. Nos. H:53/2022-23 and H:42/2021-22, together with all consequential proceedings.
Source reference: para. 10; p. 9Original Court PDF
M/S CHAMUNDESHWARI CITY DEVELOPERS PVT LTDvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
