WHEN THERE IS PARTITION DISPUTE REVENUE RECORDS SHALL NOT BE CHANGED SAYS KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka Government Secretariat,
M.S.Building,
Bangalore,

Circular Number No. RD 79 MRR 2002                                                                           Dated: 20th February 2003.

S l No 1860/Section RTC

Subject Reg- Co-parceners
                                                                                                CIRCULAR

There is some confusion in recording the name of the purchaser in the Mutation Register on the sale of undivided interest of one of the Co-parceners of the land. Some Revenue Inspectors are insisting upon the landholder to first get the land partitioned and then approach for mutation; whereas some Revenue Inspectors are effecting mutations by recording the name of the purchaser and even giving separate rights to the purchaser by effecting phodi in respect of the land purchased by him.

In a case reported in ILR 1999 KAR 1484 the Hon'ble High Court has held as follows:

"No doubt, as pointed by Shri Adhyapak the respondent 3 and 4 acquire the undivided interest of the 2nd respondent in respect of the land bearing sy.no.772/2. It is well settled that so long as the partition of the family properties does not take place, what the respondents 3 and 4 acquire in the land in question is only the undivided interest of the 2nd respondent. Under these circumstances, it was not permissible for the Tahsildar to enter the name of respondents 3 and 4 in respect of the land in question on the basis of the sale deed – Annexure A and give separate sub-numbers as has been done in Annexure-E. If the respondents 3 and 4 have acquired right, title and interest of the 2nd respondent in respect of the land in question, the remedy open to the respondents 3 and 4 is to seek partition of the family properties. Till that is not done, it is not permissible for the Revenue Authorities to enter the name of the purchaser in respect of the joint family properties".

It, therefore, implies that it is not correct for the Revenue Department to enter the name of purchaser in such cases where one of the Co-parceners sells his undivided interest. The purchaser will have to seek for partition of the family properties. Till it is done, revenue authorities should not enter name of the purchaser in respect of joint family properties in the mutation register.

However, if all the joint holders agree to sell a portion of their joint property to a purchaser then the authorities can certainly enter the name of the purchaser in respect of the extent purchased by him. In such cases the remaining property continued to be joint in the name of the joint owners.

Further, if one of the Co-parceners sells his undivided interest with the consent of all the other joint owners then his name can be removed and the name of the purchaser can be inserted. To illustrate these points following examples are given:

Let us presume there are 3 joint owners holding 6 acres of land. If all of them jointly sell one acre of land to D then it is permissible for the revenue authorities to mutate one acre of land in favour of D. Then RTC would be as follows:

A, B, C – 5 acres (jointly owned) D – 1 acre

In the second case, if C sells away his portion of land, which, for the sake of argument, say one and half acre (as agreed by all 3 owners) then RTC would look as follows: A, B – 4.20 acres (jointly owned) D – 1.20 acre

In both these cases it may noted that the consent of the other joint owners either at the time of executing sale deed or at the time of effecting mutation is necessary.

Above guidelines be kept in mind by all the concerned. This Circular is also available at the Revenue Department Internet site

http://www.revdept.kar.nic.in.
(RAJEEV CHAWLA)
Additional Secretary to Government
Revenue Department (Land Reforms)

To,
All Deputy Commissioners.
Foot Notes
For any suggestions / clarifications, please send mail to Mr. Rajeev Chawla (Additional Secretary)