The main legal point established in the judgment is that the application filed under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 was misconceived and without jurisdiction for correcting land entries in the revenue records.

CHIDANANDA ULLAL, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioners here in have challenged the order dated 6-11-1997 in case No. Rev/ror/8/69/96-97, in passing whereof, the respondent 1-assistant commissioner while setting aside mutation order No. 19 dated 13-5-1997 passed by the tahsildar, kodekal, shorapur taluk, had directed the tahsildar, shorapur to make the entries in the r. o. r. in respect of 16 acres 36 guntas in sy. No. 43/1 in the name of the respondent 3 (since dead during the pendency of the writ petition before this court) and further 9 acres 2 guntas in sy. No. 42/2 in the name of the respondent 2.

( 2 ) BY consent of parties, this writ petition is taken up for final disposal. hence, Rule is issued.

( 3 ) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri ashok patil and Sri r. s. siddapurkar appearing for the contesting respondent 2. The respondent 1-assistant commissioner is represented by the learned additional government advocate. The respondent 3 is the father of the petitioner and the grandfather of petitioners 2 and 3.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner had taken me through the facts of the case and further the impugned order under challenge. It is his submission that an extent of 25 acres 37 guntas of land in sy. No. 43 of uppaldinni thanda of shorapur taluk is the ancestral property of the petitioners and that for the period from 1954-55 down to the year 1996-97, an extent of 24 acres 11 guntas was shown by way of revenue entries as that of the respondent 3, the father of the petitioner 1 and that the respondent 2 all of a sudden had resorted to an application under Section 25 of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964 for getting the extent shown as 16 acres 36 guntas in the name of the respondent 3 and 9 acres 1 gunta in his own name i. e. , in the name of respondent 2. According to him, such an application was totally impermissible in law. Hence, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the assistant commissioner be quashed.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent 2-sri siddapurkar on the other hand submitted that the respondent 2 had sold only 16 acres 36 guntas of land prior to the year 1954 and that an extent of 9 acres 1 gunta was left by him under the care of his paternal uncle and that when he had returned to the village from Bombay in the year 1996, having found the entries made in respect of the entire extent in the name of the respondent 3, it was the lot of the respondent 2 to file an application under Section 25 of the land revenue act before the assistant commissioner to get the extent corrected in the r. o. rs. therefore, he submitted that the impugned order passed by the assistant commissioner was just and proper, particularly when the petitioner herein had not shown the reason as to how all of a sudden from the year 1967-68 the entire extent of 24 acres 11 guntas was shown as against the name of the respondent 2, the father of the petitioner 1 and grand father of petitioners 2 and 3, whereas earlier to that, the extent was shown clearly as 16 acres 36 guntas.

( 6 ) THE learned government Advocate appearing for the respondent 1 however supported the impugned order passed by the assistant commissioner.

( 7 ) I have carefully considered the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for both sides and further of the learned government advocate. I have also gone through the impugned order under challenge. having gone through the impugned order under challenge, at the outset, it appears to me that the very application filed by the respondent 2 before the assistant commissioner was totally a misconceived application for admittedly, the said application came to be filed under section 25 of the K. L. R. Act. The said provision of law is only a saving provision of the inherent powers of the revenue court. To quote the said provision of law, the same reads as hereunder:"25. Savings of inherent powers of a revenue court. Nothing in this Act, shall be deemed to limit or otherwise a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document