IMPORTANT POINT
The High Court was not right in its conclusion that without availing the remedy of second appeal under Section 50 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1956, the party would be precluded to avail the remedy of revision under Section 56 against an order passed in first Appeal under Section 49 of the Act. It would be one of the alternatives available to an aggrieved party.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. We have heard the counsel for the parties. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated April 21, 1994 made in W.P. No. 1628/92. The High Court in the impugned order has held that since the appeal under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, the "Act") has not been preferred by the appellant, the revision under Section 56 is not maintainable. Therefore, it has remitted the matter to the Assistant Director of Survey & Settlement and Land Records for disposal of the matter in accordance with law in the light of the order made by the Deputy Assistant Director of Land Survey & Settlement Officer in Annexure-A dated August 7, 1989. The facts are not in dispute. They are as under :

3. In a family partition on February 11, 1953, the properties were divided between two branches. In furtherance thereof, a further partition had taken place on May 8, 1967 in which the properties have been divided between the appellant s husband and the respondents. For the demarcation of boundaries, the appellant had applied to the Assistant Director, Land Records to mutate the lands in her name with the boundaries thereunder. The Assistant Director by his proceedings dated October 14, 1986 demarcated the lands. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal under Section 49 of the Act before the Deputy Director Land Records who had allowed the appeal and set aside the order by proceedings dated August 7, 1989 and remitted the matter to the Assistant Director to proceed with demarcation in the light of the directions given in the order.

4. The appellant filed a revision under Section 56. The Joint Director by his order dated 26, 1991 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the appellate authority and confimed the order of the Assistant Director. The respondents filed a revision under Section 56 to the Director. The Director by his order dated September 16, 1991 dismissed the same. In a further revision filed by him the karnataka Administrative Tribunal by order dated January 1, 1992 dismissed the revision holding that no second revision is maintainable under Section 56. The respondents filed the writ petition in the High Court. As stated earlier, the Division Bench has allowed the writ petition with the above direction.

5. A contention was raised in the High Court that since the second appeal has been provided under Section 50 of the Act, the revision under Section 56 is not maintainable. The High Court accepted the said contention and allowed the writ petition in part and remitted the matter to the Assistant Director as referred to earlier. The High Court while holding that the second revision is not maintainable has held further that the order passed by the Joint Director, namely, Ist revisional authority was a nullity for want of jurisdiction. The conclusion in that behalf is that since the appeal under Section 50 would lie against the order under Section 49, failure to avail of the remedy under Section 50, the appellant became disentitled to avail of revisional jurisdiction under Section 56 ; therefore, the order of the Joint Director was held to be without jurisdiction and a nullity. Accordingly, it remitted the matter to the primary authority for disposal.

6. The question, therefore, is; whether the High Court is right in its conclusion that without availing the remedy of second appeal under Section 50, the party would be precluded to avail the remedy of revision under Section 56. Section 50 reads thus :

"50. Second Appeal (1) A second appeal shall lie against any order passed in a first appeal under Section 49 :-

(a) if such an order is passed by the Assistant Commissioner, to the Deputy Commissioner ;

(b) if such an order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, to the Tribunal ;

(b1) if such an order is passed by the Assistant Superintendent for Settlement or the Assistant Supreintendent of