1. The petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the order passed by the JDLR North Division, Belgaum – respondent No.2 herein, in REV/SR-31/07-08 dated 31.12.2007 (Annexure-F).

2. It is the case of the petitioners that, the vendor of the petitioner – Channabasanagouda, by registered sale deed dated 13.01.1988 sold the property in favour of the petitioners and pursuant to the same, the mutation entry was effected in the name of the petitioners on 13.01.1988. Thereafter, respondent No.3 has challenged the mutation entry made in favour of the petitioners in Appeal No.11/2007-08 before the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records, Dharwad (ADLR), to delete the name of the vendor of the petitioners – Channabasanagouda and to restore the name in his favour. The said appeal filed by the respondent No.3 was dismissed by the ADLR as per the order dated 20.08.2007 (Annexure-C). The said order of dismissal passed by the ADLR was challenged by the 3rd respondent before the Joint Director of Land Records (JDLR), North Division, Belgaum, in Revision No.REV/SR-31/07-08. The JDLR by its order dated 31.12.2007 set aside the order passed by the ADLR and as such, directed the petitioners herein to approach the competent Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented this writ petition.

3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. There is no representation on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contented that, the petitioners herein have purchased the property in question by virtue of the sale deed dated 13.01.1988 from one Channabasanagouda and in that view of the matter, the revenue authorities ought to have entered the name of the petitioners in the respective revenue records. Despite the same, the JDLR by the impugned order directed the petitioners herein to approach the competent Civil Court, which is not correct. In this regard he places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of P.K. Vasudevan v. Deputy Commissioner Of Kodagu District reported in ILR 2002 KAR 4637.

5. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate sought to justify the impugned order passed by the JDLR.

6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is not in dispute that, by virtue of the registered sale deed dated 13.01.1988, the petitioners herein have purchased the land in question from one Channabasanagouda. Taking into consideration the language employed under Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, I am of the view that the ADLR rightly given conclusion by entering the name of the petitioners in the revenue records. However, the JDLR on erroneous assumption of facts and law, has reversed the said finding recorded by the ADLR, which is not correct and contrary to above provisions. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the JDLR, North Division, Belgaum in REV/SR-31/07-08, is set aside.

iii. The order dated 20.08.2007 passed by the ADLR, Dharwad, in Appeal No.CTS/RTS/AP.No.11/07-08 is restored on file.

iv. It is also made clear that, in the event of any dispute with regard to the title of the land in question, the aggrieved party shall approach the competent Civil Court to establish their right over the property in question, in accordance with law.