Karnataka Land Revenue Act| No Requirement To Report To Prescribed Officer When There Is A Registered Document: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court observed that under Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, an officer is duty-bound to register the name of the person who has acquired the ownership based on the document which is forwarded by the prescribed officer to the concerned revenue authority, even if the owner has not made an application.
The Bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur observed, “…there is a duty cast upon any person who acquires succession, ownership or right on the property to make an application to the prescribed officer within three months from the date of such acquisition and the said officer shall at once give written acknowledgement to the said person. But the second proviso to the section which is extracted hereinabove exempts the obligation to report to the prescribed officer. When there is any document which is a registered document produced by the person to the prescribed officer, in the sense there is no requirement for the person to make an application or report to the prescribed officer when there is a registered document as required under law, completing all formalities of the requirement of registration under the Registration Act as it becomes a duty incumbent upon the officer to register the name of the person who has acquired the ownership on the basis of the document which is forwarded by the prescribed officer to the concerned revenue authority.”
Advocate Dattatraya Timmanna Hebbar appeared for the Petitioner whereas HCGP Girjia S. Hiremath appeared for the Respondents.
A writ petition was filed against the endorsements issued by the Tehsildar and the Assistant Director of Land Records wherein mutation entries were refused to be entered in land and revenue records.
The Court, while relying on Section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, held, “This sub section very clearly states that once there is a registered document presented before any authority, the registration of such document shall be reported to the prescribed officer, who is duty bound to make the entry in the revenue records/mutation records with regard to change of name as per the document which is forwarded to him.”
The Court concluded, “Under the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the Tahasildar does not prescribe to the required provisions of the Act and the duty cast upon the officer. The same is erroneous and is liable to be quashed.”
Accordingly, the impugned orders were quashed and the tehsildar was directed to make entries in the records.
Cause Title: Smt. Apsana@ Sarika Khan v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (Neutral Citation:2024:KHC-D:7075)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Dattatraya Timmanna Hebbar
Respondents: HCGP Girjia S. Hiremath