Karnataka High Court Suggests Empowering Civil Courts To Stay Mutation Orders In Title, Possession Dispute Cases

The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) has suggested empowering the Civil Court to pass interim measures staying mutation orders passed by revenue authorities under the State Land Revenue Act concerning properties involving possession or title disputes. This the court said would help avoid multiplicity of parallel proceedings and aide litigants, since a title dispute can only be adjudicated by civil courts. The court was hearing a petition challenging a 2020 of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, cancelling mutation of land based on a disputed Will, and directed that entry be made in the record in the names of the natural heirs.For context the Deputy Commissioner had set-aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner which had earlier confirmed the Tahasildar's order certifying the mutation of land in question based on a disputed Will. Additionally the Assistant Commissioner had directed the parties to approach the Civil Court to establish their respective claims on the disputed Will.Justice Anant Ramnath Hegde observed that it was settled law that Revenue Authorities do not have the jurisdiction to decide claims based on Will/Testament and such power only rests with the Civil Court which can adjudicate the validity of such Will/testament. The court thus upheld the deputy commissioner's order. It however noted that such cases pointed to "lacuna" in the law as it had noticed that several writ petitions challenging orders passed by revenue authorities in mutation proceedings arising from orders passed under Chapter-XI of the Act were being filed. It noted that Section 135 prohibits suit against the State Government in respect of a claim over an entry made in any record or register maintained under Chapter-XI. However, the proviso, provides that any party, aggrieved by an entry made in the record or the register maintained by the revenue authorities under Chapter XI may institute a suit against any person denying or interested to deny the title or possession."it is apparent that the dispute relating to possession or title over the immovable property affected by any mutation has to be adjudicated by the competent Civil Court. The full Bench of this Court in Jayamma and Others vs State of Karnataka, has held that the parties need not exhaust the remedies of appeal and revision before filing the suit as provided under proviso to Section 135 of the Act, 1964 whenever the dispute arises as to the title and possession of immovable property. Despite the declaration of law being so, parties are approaching the Revenue Authorities challenging the orders under Chapter XI of the Act,1964, by filing an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner against order passed by Tahasildar, and a revision to the Deputy Commissioner against order passed by Assistant Commissioner"The court noted that after disposal of proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner, the parties were moving the High Court challenging orders of Revenue Authorities. It said that "innumerable writ petitions" are filed despite Section 135 which provides for a comprehensive suit to establish the possession as well as title. It further emphasized that the high court in exercise of its Article 226 jurisdiction cannot adjudicate over the title and possession of the parties over property. This, the court said, has to be decided by the competent Civil Court. It said:"It appears, that lack of a specific provision in the Act, 1964, or in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to seek a stay of operation of impugned mutations/orders under Chapter XI of the Act, 1964, in a Civil suit, drives the parties to approach the Authorities under the Act, 1964 and ultimately the High Court to seek a stay of operation of impugned orders or mutations. Existing law provides for parallel or sequential proceedings resulting in avoidable delay in the adjudication process.To put it differently, the law in the present form is encouraging multiple proceedings in different forums over one lis, where decision before Revenue Authorities is subject to the decision of the Civil Court. Given the enormous workload on the Courts and Revenue Authorities, it is high time to revisit the law which encourages parallel proceedings before various forums"It thereafter suggested:1. Exercise before the Revenue Authority where there cannot be any conclusive decision relating to title and possession, (as the decision would be subject to Civil Court's order) is unnecessary. Such situation has to be avoided in the interest of litigants, and to reduce the workload of Authorities and High Court as many such disputes end up in High Court, where the court would only be saying that disputed entries/mutations will be subject to the result of the suit by competent Civil Court2. Noting that no specific provision was incorporated in Section 135 for seeking stay of orders passed by revenue authorities over mutation claims, the court...

Karnataka High Court Suggests Empowering Civil Courts To Stay Mutation Orders In Title, Possession Dispute Cases

Malavika Prasad

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Malavika Prasad

Karnataka High Court Suggests Empowering Civil Courts To Stay Mutation Orders In Title, Possession Dispute Cases

Malavika Prasad

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Malavika Prasad

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers