P.VASANTHA PRABHU Vs. B.GIRIDHAR BALIGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has raised the challenge to the order, dated 6.9.2011 (Annexure-A) passed by the fourth respondent Deputy Commissioner allowing the revision petition filed by the first respondent by setting aside the order, dated 1.7.2010 passed by the third respondent Assistant Commissioner.

(2.) THE facts of the case in brief are that the respondent No.1 purchased the punja land measuring 9 cents standing at Survey No.125/19 of Bantwal Kasaba Village from Smt.Chandravathi and her children by a registered sale deed, dated 30.11.1993. On the Tahsildar accepting the first respondent's mutation on 28.3.1994, the petitioner filed the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner claims to be a tenant under Smt.Chandravathi. It is the petitioner's case that the 3 cents in his possession do not form part of the property purchased by the first respondent. The Assistant Commissioner, by his order, dated 1.7.2010 (Annexure-B) remanded the matter to the Tahsildar on the ground that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of having his say in the matter. He directed the Tahsildar to hold fresh enquiry in the matter. The Assistant Commissioner's order was challenged by the first respondent by way of revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner by the impugned order set aside the Assistant Commissioner's order and restored the mutation order passed by the Tahsildar.

(3.) SRI M.Sudhakar Pai, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that the first respondent has purchased the property by a registered sale deed. The 3 cents of lands, which are in possession of the petitioner, are also a part of the said lands purchased by the first respondent. He submits that the Trial Court has totally negatived the case of the petitioner. It has even held that the rent agreement relied upon by the petitioner is also not proved.