(Prayer: This WP is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records from R1 in RP 46/10-11 and also records from r2 in appeal no. ra (BNA) 377/08-09 on records from R3 in the mutation proceedings mr 161/06-07 dated 13.2.07 held in respect of lands bearing sy no.63 measuring 3 acre 11 Guntas and sy no.132 measuring 20 Guntas situated at Manchappanahosahalli which is also known as M.Hosahalli, Jala Hobli, Bangalore north Taluk.)

Oral Order:

1. The petitioners in this writ petition are seeking a writ of certiorari to set aside the order dated 15.09.2012 passed in R.P.No.46/2010 by respondent No.1 at Annexure-A.

2. It is the grievance of the petitioners is that they are the owners in possession of land bearing Sy.No.63 measuring 3 acres 31 Guntas and Sy.No.132 measuring 20 guntas, both situated at M.Hosahalli Village, Jala Hobli (for brevity "subject lands"), being the class one legal heir of one Narayanappa, who was also known as Thoti Narayanappa. The subject lands are Thoti Inam lands and one late Muninanjappa and his brother late Nanjundappa, who were Baravardars, were cultivating the said lands. Since, they had no issues, they adopted Narayanappa i.e., husband of petitioner No.1.

3. During their lifetime, the said Muninanjappa and Nanjundappa filed an application for re-grant of the lands attached to the office of the Thoti. Respondent No.4 - Munivenakatamma was rival claimant in the said case. Later, in the year 1972, the late Muninanjappa and Late Nanjundappa executed the registered Will dated 29.08.1972 in favour of Narayanappa, the adopted son. Subsequently, on 31.03.1973 the Assistant Commissioner, Dodadaballapura, re-granted the subject lands in favour of Muninanjappa and Narayanappa by rejecting the claim of respondent No.4-Smt Munivenkatamma.

4. Though respondent No.4 is a stranger to the family of the petitioners, she concocted an unregistered Partition Deed dated 16.10.2006 without the knowledge of the petitioners. During September 2006, when the petitioners decided to sell an extent of 4 acre 11 guntas of subject lands to one M.Anjinappa, to complete the said sale transaction, the purchaser entrusted the work to procure documents to one Adinarayana H.T. - son of respondent No.4, who was working as a helper to the concerned Village Accountant. Thereafter, the said Adinarayana in order to knock off the subject lands, fabricated and created the unregistered Partition Deed dated 16.10.2006 and based on the same, he managed to create 11E Sketch and also entered the mutation in the name of respondent No.4 on 13.07.2007. Further, he also fabricated an endorsement dated 14.03.2007 for permission to alienate the land in question though such permission was not required. Hence, the petitioners approached the Assistant Commissioner for cancellation of the revenue entries and the Assistant Commissioner has allowed the appeal by canceling the mutation entry effected in the name of respondent No.4 and ordered to enter the name of the petitioners vide Annexure B.

5. The said order has been challenged by respondent No.4 before the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.46/2010-11 and the Deputy Commissioner has allowed the Revision Petition by setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and ordered to restore and continue the mutation effected as per MR.161/06-07 in the name of respondent No.4 in respect of subject lands. The challenge to the same is lis before this court.

6. Heard Sri. B Sharath Kumar., learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Rahul Cariappa K.S., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3 and 5 and Sri V.Vijayashekar Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

7. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that respondent No.4 is a total stranger to the family of the petitioners and at no point in time, the alleged Partition Deed dated 16.10.2006 was executed. The said Partition Deed was a concocted one by forging the signature of the petitioners, as such, the same was not registered. The said Partition Deed was created by the son of respondent No.4 namely Adinarayana and by relying on the said Partition Deed, 11E Sketch and the revenue records were changed in the name of respondent No.4 and the said aspect has rightly been dealt with by the Assistant Commissioner by ordering restoration of revenue entries in the name of the petitioners.

8. He also contended that a criminal case has been registered against said Adinarayana based on the complaint lodged by the petitioners in Crime No.209/2013 by the Bagalur police for the offence punishable under Section 193, 177, 182, 420, 465, 468, 474, 426 read with Section 34 of IPC and after investigation, the said police filed charge sheet against respondent No.4, her son and others. In such circumstance, it is clearly established that, the alleged Partition Deed was fabricated and as such, the subsequent entries in the revenue records are not sustainable under law. Accordingly, he prays to allow the writ petition.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submits that respondent No.4-Munivenkatamma is the foster daughter of late Muninanjappa who was the original owner of the subject land by virtue of Inams Abolition. According to the learned counsel, after demise of Muninanjappa and Narayanappa i.e., the husband of petitioner No.1, petitioner No.1 and her children along with respondent No.4 entered into partition/panchayat parikat dated 16.10.2006 and the subject lands fell to the share of respondent No.4 and ever since, she is in possession and enjoyment of subject lands and all the revenue entries mutated in her name. Despite, the petitioners filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner by suppressing the material facts and the Assistant Commissioner has wrongly allowed the appeal. However, the Deputy Commissioner, after delving into the matter in detail, allowed the revision filed by respondent No.4 by setting aside the order of Assistant Commissioner and directed to mutate the revenue entries in the name of respondent No.4. In such circumstances, the impugned order does not call for any interference. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

10. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the respective parties, so also perused the materials on record.

11. As could be gathered from records, the subject lands are Thoti Inam lands, belongs to one Muninanjappa and Nanjundappa and they have executed a registered Will dated 29.08.1972 in favour of Narayanappa i.e., the husband of petitioner No.1 bequeathing the subject lands. Thereafter, the subject lands were re-granted in favour of said Muninanjappa and Narayanappa in the year 1973. Though respondent No.4 made a claim for re-grant of the subject land in her favour, the same was rejected.

12. After the demise of original grantee Muninanjappa and Narayanappa, the subject lands continued in possession of petitioner No.1 and her children. However, it is claimed by respondent No.4 that, she is the foster daughter of Muninanjappa, as such, after demise of Narayanappa, herself and petitioner No.1 and her children entered into a Partition Deed dated 16.10.2006 and the subject land fell to her share and based on that, all the revenue entries mutated in her name.

13. On careful examination of the impugned order and the documents placed by the rival parties, it could be seen that, based on the complaint lodged by petitioner No.2, the Bagaluru Police registered a case against respondent No.4, her son - Adinarayana and 5 others for the offence punishable under Section 193, 177, 182, 420, 465, 468, 474, 426 read with Section 34 of IPC in Crime No.209/2013 dated 17.09.2013. After investigation, the said police also filed the charge sheet against respondent No.4 and others for fabricating the Partition Deed dated 16.10.2006 by forging the signatures of the petitioners and also for changing the revenue entries in their favour relying on the same.

14. It is to be noticed that the son of respondent No.4- Adinarayana was an employee in the Village Accountant Office. It is the specific case of the petitioners that in the year 2006, when the petitioners decided to sell the subject land in favour of one Anjinappa and the said purchaser entrusted the work of procuring necessary documents to said Adinarayana. By taking undue advantage of the same, he concocted the Partition Deed by forging the signature of the petitioners. This contention of the petitioners is fortified by the documents in the charge sheet filed against respondent No.4, her son - Adinarayana and others in Crime No.209/2013.

15. Additionally, respondent No.4 has failed to produce any iota of evidence or documents to substantiate that she is the foster daughter of Muninanjappa. On the other hand, the petitioners produced the registered Will executed in favour of Narayanappa i.e., the husband of petitioner No.1 and also re- grant made in his favour with respect to subject lands. In such circumstance, without any hesitation, I hold that respondent No.4, being a stranger to the petitioners and no way connected to the subject lands, by concocting the documents, dragged the petitioners before the Authorities and this Court for unlawful gain. Though, this aspect has been rightly appreciated by the Assistant Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner has wrongly passed the impugned order by setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner for the reasons best known to him.

16. As held by the Apex Court in K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Limited - (2008) 12 SCC 481, the Court defined 'fraud' as an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. In fraud, one gains at the loss and the cost of another. Even the most solemn proceedings stand vitiated if they are actuated by fraud.

17. Respondent No.4 dragged the dispute for more than a decade for one or the other reasons. This conduct of respondent No.4 has to be deprecated as she not only dragged the petitioners before this Court, but also wasted the precious time of the Court.

18. In the instant case, respondent No.4 wants to gain at the loss and the cost of the petitioners. Thus, the said conduct of respondent No.4 has to be dealt with iron hands by imposing costs. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

                  ORDER

                  i)        The writ petition is allowed.

                  ii)       A writ of certiorari is issued.

                  iii)       The order dated 15.09.2012 passed in Revision Petition No.46/2010-11 by the Deputy Commissioner- respondent No.1 as per Annexure-A is set aside.

                  iv)      Consequently, the order dated 07.04.2011 passed in R.A.(BNA) 377/08-09 by the Assistant Commissioner-respondent No.2 is restored.

                  v)       The Tahsildar - respondent No.3 is directed to restore the mutation entries in the name of the petitioners in respect of subject lands.

                  vi)      The costs of Rs.1,00,000/- is imposed on respondent No.4.

                  vii)      The costs shall be payable to Karnataka Legal Services Authority within a period of one month, failing which, the registry is directed to take necessary action.