Karnataka High Court
A.E.Dakshayanamma - Appellant
Versus
Karnataka Appellate Tribunal - Respondent
Decided On : 01-04-95
W.P. : 9971 of 1991
Karnataka Land Revenue Act - Authority of Deputy Commissioner to annul land grant - Section 2(24), Section 8, Section 24, Section 25 of the Act, Rule 25 of the Rules
Fact of the Case:
The Deputy Commissioner annulled a land grant made by the Tahsildar due to violations of the Rules. The petitioner appealed, arguing that only the granting authority could cancel the grant.
Finding of the Court:
The Deputy Commissioner, acting as a revenue court, had the inherent power under Section 25 of the Act to annul the grant due to violations of the Rules.
Issues: Authority of Deputy Commissioner to annul land grant, Interpretation of Rule 25 of the Rules
Ratio Decidendi: The Deputy Commissioner, as a revenue court, had the inherent power to annul the grant under Section 25 of the Act despite Rule 25 of the Rules.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Deputy Commissioner's authority to annul the land grant.
( 1 ) THE question involved in this case is as to whether the Deputy Commissioner has any authority under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (in short, the Act) and the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 (in short, the Rules) to annul the grant of any land made by Tahsildar in gross disregard of the relevant Rules.
( 2 ) THE relevant undisputed facts giving rise to the question involved may be stated in short: the respondent-Tahsildar by his order dated 15-7-1978 granted 1 acre 2 gunthas of land out of Survey No. 36 of Sanyasikodamogge village and issued Saguvali Chit on 25-7-1978. This land was under the unauthorised cultivation of one Rudrappa. He being a sufficient holder and not being authorised for regularisation in terms of Order No. 105 AGP77 dated 1/09/1977 was evicted from the land immediately thereafter without following the statutory procedure. This order as noticed by the Deputy Commissioner in his order Annexure-A does not speak as to whether the land was regularised under the aforesaid Government Order or had been granted under the provisions of the Rules. The Deputy Commissioner having learnt about the said fact initiated an enquiry, recorded evidence of the Tahsildar and the unauthorised occupant Rudrappa, Village Accountant, Revenue Inspector and the present petitioner. Thereafter, on hearing the concerned parties annulled the grant on the ground that since the petitioner was not under unauthorised cultivation prior to 1977-78, no grant could have been made in her favour pursuant to the Government Order dated 1/09/1977 referred to above. He also found that after eviction of Rudrappa, the land was not brought under the availability list as required under Rule 3 nor the procedure nor the provisions of Rules 4, 5, 6 and 24 were followed. As such, by his order Annexure-B he set aside the order of the Tahsildar granting land to the petitioner and directed for her eviction from the land.
( 3 ) THE petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also recorded a finding of fact that the petitioner was not in unauthorised possession of the land as on 1-9-1977. Accordingly, agreeing with the reasonings of the Deputy Commissioner, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal.
( 4 ) THE only objection taken on behalf of the petitioner to the impugned orders is to the effect that under Rule 25 of the Rules, any grant of land can be cancelled only by the authority which has granted. But in the present case, as submitted, since the grant was admittedly made by the Tahsildar, the Deputy Commissioner could not have resorted to a proceeding culminating in cancellation of the grant.
( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents have relied on the inherent powers conferred on the revenue courts which includes the Deputy Commissioner as contemplated under S. 25 of the Act to support the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner in passing the impugned order. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on the case of Abdul Basheer Sab v. State of Mysore reported in 1974 (2) Kant LJ 371 : (AIR 1975 Kant 86 ).
( 6 ) SECTION 2 (24) of the Act defines the term "revenue Officer" to mean every officer of any rank whatsoever appointed under or employed for the purpose of the Act. Section 8 provides for appointment of Deputy Commissioners and authorise them to exercise powers vested in them under the Act. Section 24 provides that a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tahsildar while determining any question under the Act or other existing law between the State Government or any person or between the parties to any proceeding shall be a Revenue Court.
( 7 ) ON the bedrock of the facts and the statutory provisions noticed above, it nowneeds to be determined as to whether on the face of R. 25 of the Rules, the Deputy Commissioner could have passed the impugned order by invoking the inherent powers as a Revenue Court as provided under S. 25 of the Act.
( 8 ) SECTION 25 of the Act an
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.