1. The petitioner is a society registered under the Mysore Societies Registration Act, 1904, and established with an objective of providing endowment, equipment, development and maintenance of medical colleges and hospitals and various other objectives as enshrined in the Memorandum of Association, Rules and Regulations. The petitioner-Society has established the St.Johns Medical college and hospital in a wide extent of about 60 acres. The present dispute is confined to a portion of the said property in Sy.No.81/2, measuring 37 guntas situated at Taverekere village, Beguru Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk. The petitioner-Society is aggrieved of the impugned orders passed by the respondent-Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk in his order dated 28.06.2008, order of the Assistant Commissioner, Appellate Authority in R.A.No.(S)150/2008-09 dated 04.03.2010 and order of the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.3/2010-11 dated 01.08.2014 at Annexures-K, P and R, respectively. By the impugned orders the respondent authorities have directed its officials to conduct survey and mark boundaries of the properties in dispute.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the contesting respondents cannot dispute the fact that the petitioner-society has established the St.John Medical college and Hospital and has constructed the college and hospital building along with quarters for its staff and hostels for the students, auditorium etc., totally encompassing about 60 acres, and has put up compound wall to the entire extent of land, which is belonging to the petitioner-society and demonstrated possession and occupancy of the lands at the hands of the petitioner-society. That being the position, the contesting respondents could not have approached the revenue authorities seeking a direction to conduct survey of the disputed property knowingly fully well that the land in question is long ago brought under jurisdiction of the then Corporation of the city of Bengaluru, which was later named as Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and thereafter renamed as Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the contesting respondents seeking survey should have been rejected by the revenue authorities both on the ground of delay and laches and the fact that the land is no more within the province of the revenue authorities under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

3. As regards the question of delay and laches, learned Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision in the case of S. Shivanna Vs. Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru North Taluk and others, 2005 SCC onLine Kar 604, to contend that the entry made in favour of a person at an undisputed point of time cannot be questioned after lapse of several years. It was held that such power should be exercised within reasonable time.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of J.M.Narayana and Others Vs. Corporation City of Bangalore and Others, ILR 2005 Kar 60 and Anna Rao Vs. Gundareddy, LAWS (KAR) 1996-7-73, in order to buttress his contentions that when once the jurisdiction of the land is taken over by the Municipal Corporation under the provisions of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act would cease to apply. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on a recent decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Hewlett Packard (India) Software Operation Private Limited Vs. Tahsildar, Bangalore East Taluk and Others, in W.P.No.209/2020 (KLR-RES), dated 01.10.2020.

5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents would submit that the dispute between the petitioner-society and the contesting respondents did not arise recently. Earlier, the contesting respondents had filed a suit in O.S.No.526/2002 before the City Civil Court, Bengaluru Rural District seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner-society. However, the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution by order dated 14.10.2006. Nevertheless, one of the contesting respondents Sri.Gopal S/o K.Ramaiah has filed a suit in O.S.NO.4110/2020, which is pending consideration before the XLVIth Additional City Civil Court, Bengaluru where the plaintiff has once again sought for decree of permanent injunction. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondents would also submit that an ad- interim exparte order of temporary injunction was granted on 10.09.2020 and is continued till the disposal of the suit.

6. Learned Counsel would submit that in the case of Golappa Vs. Malakappa, ILR 1995 KAR 118, this Court has held that since there is no period of limitation prescribed for making application before the revenue authorities, the submission of the learned Counsel on the question of delay and laches should be rejected.

7. Heard the learned counsels for the petitioner, contesting respondents, the learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the petition papers.

8. Admittedly, the contesting respondents approached the Special Tahsildar in the year 2008-09 seeking the entry of their names in the land revenue records on the strength of registered instrument executed in the year 1949 and prior thereto. The contention of the contesting respondents before the Special Tahsildar was that out of Sy.No.81/2, which contained 8 Acres and 16 guntas of land, what was sold to the petitioner was only 7 acres 19 guntas. Therefore, 37 guntas of land was retained after the sale made in favour of the petitioner-society or the Archbishop in whose name the sale deed was executed. It is therefore the contention of the respondents that since the entire extent of land was shown in the name of the petitioner-society in Sy.No.81/2, the respondents approached the Special Tahsildar to show their names in respect of 37 guntas of land. It is noticeable that the prayer made by the contesting respondents before the Special Tahsildar was in respect of Sy.No.81/5 measuring 38 guntas and what has been directed by the Tahsildar is regarding 37 guntas in Sy.No.81/2.

9. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondents could not have approached the revenue authorities seeking to mutate their names in the land revenue records when it was known to them that the name of the earlier kathedar was mutated and the name of the petitioner-society or the purchaser was entered consequent to the registered sale deed dated 30.12.1959. The issue is not merely about the entry in the revenue records, the real dispute is on the title of the property. In this regard, it is necessary to notice the contention of the petitioner-society that the society has put up a compound wall encompassing the entire property which measures nearly 60 acres and it is in possession of the petitioner-society including the disputed 37 guntas of land. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondents had contended that in respect of the property in question the petitioner society has not put up any compound wall. If that contention is accepted there was no reason why the respondent had to approach the revenue authorities to enter their names in the land revenue records. On the other hand, one of the respondents has filed an original suit seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the petitioner-society in O.S.No.4110/2020, which is pending consideration before the city civil court at Bangalore.

10. Having gone through the decisions cited at the Bar, this Court is in respectful agreement of the decision of the co-ordinate bench in the case of HEWLETT PACKARD (INDIA) SOFTWARE OPERATION PRIVATE LIMTIED Vs. TASHILDAR AND ANTOHER (supra) in W.P.No.209/2020. The entries in the revenue records under the provision of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, will have little value after the lands are brought under the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation. It cannot be disputed that the lands in possession of the petitioner-society have been assigned a municipal number and property tax is collected by the local body i.e., Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). A separate property identification number (PID) is given to each of the properties within the jurisdiction of BBMP. Therefore, if the contesting respondents have any issue regarding the identification of the property and that the disputed piece of land is in unauthorised occupation of the petitioner- society, then the remedy for the respondents is to approach the competent civil court to seek a declaration in their favour. During the course of such proceedings before the competent civil court, necessary application would have to be filed by the aggrieved party to ascertain the boundaries or identification of the property and seek necessary orders to survey the land. As and when the civil court passes any order directing the revenue authorities to conduct a survey, the revenue authorities would assist the court in identification of the property. Admittedly, till now, the respondents have not filed a suit seeking a declaration of their title. On the other hand, nearly 6 decades after the sale deed dated 30.12.1959 was executed by the ancestors of the contesting respondents in favour of the petitioner-society/the Archbishop of Bengaluru, they have approached the Special Tahsildar invoking the provisions of Sections 128 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

11. As noticeable the provisions contained in section 128 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act is to enable a person who has acquired rights over the revenue lands either by way of inheritance or purchase or by any other modes, which is mentioned in the said provision, to get their names entered in the land revenue records. As noticeable Sri Ramaiah, the person who sold the property along with others in favour of Archbishop of Bengaluru approached the Tahsildar invoking the provisions contained in Section 128. The said provision does not enable the respondents namely Ramaiah and others to approach the Tahsildar seeking entry of their names under Section 128 of the Act. If the name of the petitioner- society was wrongly entered in the land revenue records beyond what was purchased by them, then the remedy for the previous kathedar was to file an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Act challenging the order of the Tahsildar, who entered the name of the petitioner-society in the land revenue records.

12. That apart, this Court has time and again held that for the provisions contained under Section 136 of the Act to be invoked, the same is required to be done within reasonable time. Atleast two decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MOHAMAD KAVI MOHAMAD AMIN Vs. FATMABAI IBRAHIM-(1997) 6 SCC 71 and JOINT COLLECTOR RANGA REDDY DISTRICT Vs. D.NARASING RAO AND OTHERS-(2015) 3 SCC 695, have been often quoted to say that even if there is no period of limitation prescribed or if suo motu proceedings have to be initiated by any authority, the same is required to be done within a reasonable time. It is also noticeable that sub-section (2) of Section 136 prescribes a period of sixty days, as limitation for preferring an appeal challenging any entry made in the Record of Rights, under chapter XI of the Act.

13. As regards the jurisdiction of the revenue authorities in respect of land falling within the jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation, this Court is of the considered opinion that the role of the revenue authorities would be limited to the extent of assisting the local body and its authorities or the competent civil courts in the matter of identification of the property, since the original land records and survey settlement records are in possession of the revenue authorities and the department of survey settlement. The dubious methods adopted by the respondents to seek a survey at the hands of the revenue authorities, in the guise of getting their names entered in the land revenue records is required to be deprecated. As noticed earlier, since the dispute is in respect of the title of the property and possession, contesting respondents are required to get a declaration at the hands of the civil court. During the said process, if there is any direction issued by the civil court, only then the revenue authorities could have proceeded to survey the property in question. That not being so, the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar and upheld by the appellate authority and the revisional authority cannot be sustained.

14. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed.

All the three impugned orders passed by the respondent-Special Tahsildar, Bengaluru South Taluk, dated 28.06.2008, order of the Assistant Commissioner, Appellate Authority in R.A.No.(S)150/ 2008-09 dated 04.03.2010 and order of the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.3/2010-11 dated 01.08.2014 at Annexures-K, P and R, respectively, are hereby quashed and set aside.

15. Any observations made during the course of this proceedings, in this order shall not prejudice the case of the parties before the civil court. The contesting respondents are also at liberty to seek appropriate relief at the hands of the civil court, either in the pending suit or by initiating the separate suit seeking a declaration in their favour in accordance with law.

Ordered accordingly.

16. In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2016 stands disposed of.