Back
1998 Supreme(Kar) 749
Karnataka High Court
MADAN KUMAR - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA - Respondent
Decided On : 11-30-98
W.P. : 14986 of 1992
G.B.LAKSHMIPATHI REDDY, P.R.Ramesh, R.K.HATTI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a party avails the opportunity of filing appeals under Sections 49 and 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, they cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
Headnote:
Karnataka Land Revenue Act - Jurisdiction of Revisional Authority - Sections 49, 50, 56, and 57 - The court held that when a party avails the opportunity of filing appeals under Sections 49 and 50 of the Act, they cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The scope of Sections 56 and 57 of the Act are different, and the finality of the order contemplated under Section 50 of the Act is of the appellate order. The Revision No. 156 of 1989 to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal being without jurisdiction, could not have been entertained, much less, allowed.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were allotted land by the Tahsildar, and the owner of an adjacent land sought to challenge the grant. The case involved multiple appeals and revisions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Revision No. 156 of 1989 to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was without jurisdiction and could not have been entertained.
Issues: The main issue was the jurisdiction of the Revisional Authority under Sections 49, 50, 56, and 57 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a party avails the opportunity of filing appeals under Sections 49 and 50 of the Act, they cannot invoke the revisional jurisdiction of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The scope of Sections 56 and 57 of the Act are different, and the finality of the order contemplated under Section 50 of the Act is of the appellate order.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, quashing annexure-K, and the rule was made absolute.
( 1 ) THE fourth respondent-Tahsildar allotted to the petitioners, Site Nos. 99, 100 and 101 of Munnekolala Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Pursuant to the grants made in the year 1972, the lands granted came to be entered in the village panchayat records and the petitioners secured building licences for building on the sites granted to them. Krishna Reddy, the owner of Sy. No. 97 sought to challenge the grant in favour of the petitioners by an appeal filed i. e. , R. A. No. 47 of 1986-87. The appeal under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act of 1964 (hereinafter called the 'act'), after hearing, was dismissed on 30-6-1988 as per Annexure-E. Respondents 5 to 14 were substituted as L. Rs of Krishna Reddy. Respondents 5 to 14 appealed under Section 50 of the Act to the Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No. 8 of 1988-89 which stood dismissed on merits on 15-7-1989 as per Annexure-F.
( 2 ) BEING aggrieved by the order Annexures-A and F, the petitioner filed Revision No. 156 of 1989. In the revision, respondents 5 to 14 sought to produce additional evidence by way of LA. No. 3 which despite objections, came to be allowed. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 4314 of 1992 challenging the order on LA. No. 3 and obtained an order of stay. Notwithstanding the stay order being brought to its notice, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowed the revision. In this writ petition, the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is challenged.
( 3 ) ADMITTEDLY, respondents 5 to 14 preferred the first appeal under Section 49 of the Act to the Assistant Commissioner and preferred the second appeal to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 50 of the Act and thereafter preferred Revision No. 156 of 1989 to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and succeeded in having the appellate orders set aside. The petitioners have challenged the order in Revision No. 156 of 1989 as being without jurisdiction. During the course of the arguments, the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Puttahonnamma v. Gangadhara Murthy , wherein the decision of this Court in C. Gangadhara Murthy v State of Karnataka and Others , was reversed. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 56 of the Act and in para 7 of the judgment, has made the following observation:"it is seen that against the order passed by any of the enumerated officers, the remedy of first appeal has been provided under Section 49. Against the appellate orders under Section 49, Section 50 gives right of second appeal. Section 56 envisages that the Tribunal, any Revenue Officer not inferior in rank to the assistant Commissioner. . . . . may call for and examine the record of any enquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate officer under the Act or under Section 54 of the CPC for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as to the legality or propriety of the proceedings of such officer. Sub-section (3) provides that no application for revision under this section and no power of revision shall be exercised against any order in respect of which an appeal under this Chapter "has been preferred" (emphasis supplied) and no application for revision shall be entertained unless such application is presented within a period of four months from the date of such order. Two limitations have been prescribed for exercising the revisional power under Section 56 (1), namely the application which seeks revision of the appellate order under Section 49 has not preferred any second appeal as provided under Section 50 of the Act; since Section 50 falls under that Chapter, the application shall be filed within a period of four months from the date of the appellant order. In other words, if the aggrieved party has availed of the remedy of second appeal under Section 50, he has been precluded to again avail the revisional remedy under Section 56. It does not follow that the party who had not availed the second appellate remedy under Section
