Court Affirms Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction Over Will-Based Claims, Emphasizes Need for Civil Court Adjudication
In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Shri. Rukmanna, seeking to overturn the Deputy Commissioner's order cancelling the mutation of property based on a disputed Will. The High Court, presided over by Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, reaffirmed that the Revenue Authorities do not possess the jurisdiction to resolve disputes related to possession or title arising from Wills or Testaments. Instead, such matters must be adjudicated by competent Civil Courts.
The case, titled Shri. Rukmanna v. Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, revolved around the mutation of property based on a Will, which was contested by the natural heirs. The Deputy Commissioner had previously set aside the mutation order certified by the Assistant Commissioner, directing the parties to approach Civil Courts to establish the legitimacy of the Will. This decision was challenged by the petitioner, who argued that the initial orders by the Tahasildar and Assistant Commissioner were justified.
The High Court, however, held that the Deputy Commissioner's order was consistent with established legal principles, highlighting that Revenue Authorities are not empowered to decide on claims involving Wills. Justice Hegde noted the importance of resolving such disputes through Civil Courts, which are equipped to determine the validity of Wills and Testaments.
The judgment also pointed out procedural issues within the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, particularly the absence of a specific provision for staying operations of mutation orders during civil proceedings. The Court emphasized the need for legislative reforms to streamline the process and reduce unnecessary litigation across multiple forums.
This ruling underscores the necessity for legislative intervention to address procedural lacunae that result in delays and inefficiencies in adjudicating property disputes. The Court suggested that enabling Civil Courts to grant interim reliefs could mitigate the current trend of parallel proceedings, urging the Law Commission and the Legislature to consider amendments to the law.
The High Court's decision not only clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries of Revenue Authorities but also calls for a reevaluation of existing legal frameworks to ensure swift and effective justice in property-related disputes.
Bottom Line:
Revenue Authorities do not have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes related to possession or title based on a Will/Testament; such disputes should be decided by competent Civil Courts.
Statutory provision(s): Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Section 136(3), Section 135
Shri. Rukmanna v. Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, (Karnataka)(Dharwad) : Law Finder Doc id # 2845199
