Back
2009 Supreme(Kar) 100
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA
RAM MOHAN REDDY, J.
GANAPATHRAO
Versus
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GULBARGA AND OTHERS
Writ Petition No. 9547 of 2007 connected with Writ Petition No. 9662 of 2007
Decided On : 9th February, 2009
Smt. Umadevi S. Babshetty, Advocate for Petitioners;
Sri S. Mallikarjuna Saukar, High Court Government Pleader and Sri R.S Sidhapurkar, Advocate for Respondents.
Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 226: [Ram Mohan Reddy,J] Maintainability of Writ Petition - Entry in register of mutations - Revisional order passed by Deputy Commissioner for modification - Remedy open to person aggrieved that his right has been affected by order, is to institute suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for declaration of his right, and entry can be amended only in accordance with such declaration. Hence, writ petition filed in challenging revisional order by Deputy Commissioner is not maintainable.
KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 - Sections 136(3), 129 & 135, Proviso: [Ram Mohan Reddy,J] Entry in register of mutations - Revisional order passed by Deputy Commissioner for modification - Remedy open to person aggrieved that his right has been affected by order, is to institute suit under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act for declaration of his right, and entry can be amended only in accordance with such declaration. Hence, writ petition filed in challenging revisional order by Deputy Commissioner is not maintainable.
Common questions of fact and that of law arise for decision making, hence, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the petitions, are clubbed together, finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.
2. The question that arises for decision making in these petitions is whether the entries made by the revenue authorities in the revenue records relating to immovable property in question under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is amenable to the writ jurisdiction? The Deputy Commissioner having passed orders exercising revisional jurisdiction under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, it is needless to state that the petitioners, if aggrieved by the said orders can resort to the remedy of filing a civil suit as permitted under the proviso to Section 135 of the Act, in the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Srimanmaharaja Niranjana Jagadguru Mallikarjuna Murugarajendra Mahaswamy v Deputy Commissioner.
The writ petitions are accordingly disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioners to question the orders impugned before the Competent Civil Court having jurisdiction.
