Back
1994 Supreme(Kar) 107
Karnataka High Court
C.GANGADHARA MURTHY - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 04-21-94
W.P. : 1628 of 1992
B.M.KRISHNA BHAT, K.SUMAN, N.DEVDAS, U.L.NARAYAN RAO
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of revision by the tribunal is limited by the law and cannot be exercised against an order in respect of which an appeal has been preferred.
Headnote:
JURISDICTION - LAND DISPUTE - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Section 49, 50, 56 - The court discussed the maintainability of revision petitions and second appeals under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The court held that the revision petition filed before the joint director was not maintainable as the second appeal lies before the tribunal and not before the joint director. The court also emphasized that the tribunal's power of revision is limited by the law and cannot be exercised against an order in respect of which an appeal has been preferred. The court quashed the orders made by the joint director and the director, directing the parties to approach the assistant director for further proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash orders passed by respondents 2 to 4 regarding a land dispute. The petitioner claimed that the division bench of the tribunal was in error in dismissing the revision petition as not maintainable, while the respondents argued that the revision petition was not maintainable due to the provisions of Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the revision petition filed before the joint director was not maintainable as the second appeal lies before the tribunal and not before the joint director. The court also emphasized that the tribunal's power of revision is limited by the law and cannot be exercised against an order in respect of which an appeal has been preferred. The court quashed the orders made by the joint director and the director, directing the parties to approach the assistant director for further proceedings.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the revision petition filed before the joint director under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and the subsequent appeal before the tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the revision petition filed before the joint director was not maintainable as the second appeal lies before the tribunal and not before the joint director. The court also emphasized that the tribunal's power of revision is limited by the law and cannot be exercised against an order in respect of which an appeal has been preferred.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the writ petition, upholding the tribunal's decision but quashing the orders made by the joint director and the director, and directing the parties to approach the assistant director for further proceedings.
( 1 ) THE petitioner in this writ petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of India has sought to quash the orders (annexures-k, c and b), dated 1-1-1992, 16-9-1991 and 26-6-1991 passed by respondents 2 to 4 herein respectively, for the reasons stated therein.
( 2 ) A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of this petition are as follows: the petitioner is the owner of a part of an agricultural land hearing sy, No. 47 of Sri Gandhadakavalu Village, Yeshawantapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. There was a partition amongst the members of his family and the ancestors of respondent 7 as disclosed in detail in revision petition No. 191 of 1991 presented by the petitioner before the tribunal, respondent 2 herein. It has come on record that subsequent to the partition, respondent 7 got the land measured and phoded as 47/1-a and 47/1-b by the assistant director of land records and survey settlement, without notice to the petitioner and while doing so, the land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas in the possession of the petitioner for the last 40 years was included to the portion of respondent 7 and measured. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the deputy director of land records, respondent 5 herein, for cancelling the durasth of the land made by the assistant director of land records. Respondent 5, after enquiry, allowed the appeal and directed the assistant director of land records to hold a detailed enquiry into the matter and to pass an appropriate Order after notice to all the parties including the petitioner. That Order was challenged by respondent 7 before the joint director of survey settlement and land records, respondent 5 herein, who, by his Order (annexure-b) dated 26th june, 1991 in n. J. d. l. r. revision petition No. 6 of 1989-90, set aside the Order (annexure-a) made by the deputy director of survey settlement and land records with a direction to the assistant director of survey settlement and land records to give effect to the orders mpr. 33/1986-87 and adl. Bn. Mpr. 139/1986-87 dividing sy. No. 47 as 47/1-a and 47/1-b.
( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the said Order of respondent 4, the petitioner took up the matter before the director of survey settlement and land records, respondent 3 herein, in revision No. 16/1991-92, who, by his Order (annexure-c) dated 16-9-1991, dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner and confirmed the Order made by the joint director of survey settlement and land records. While doing so, the director reconsidered the case as if it was a revision petition and then passed the said order. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said Order, approached the Karnataka appellate tribunal, respondent 2 herein, in revision petition No. 191 of 1991. The tribunal by its Order dated 18-11-1991 admitted the revision petition and ordered status quo till the hearing date i. e. , 4-12-1991, as can be seen from the copy of the Order sheet, annexure-f. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application (la. No. I) for stay of operation of the orders under revision, which came to be dismissed by Order dated 5-12-1991 on the ground that the orders under revision were not executable orders and that therefore stay as sought for was unnecessary. Subsequently, the tribunal took up the aforesaid revision petition of the petitioner along with other number of similar petitions for hearing, heard the learned counsel on both sides and dismissed them by its common Order dated 1-1-1992, as not maintainable. Hence this petition.
( 4 ) WE have heard at length learned counsel on both sides.
( 5 ) SRI B. M. Krishna Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioner, having taken us through the relevant documents and the orders impugned herein, argued that the division bench of the tribunal was in error in having dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner as not maintainable inspite of the decision of the full bench of the same tribunal rendered earlier that more than one revision was maint
