1. Jurisdiction is a vexed legal question which has haunted courts not merely at the lower tiers, but has not spared even highest court in the land and instances of even the Supreme Court going back on its views in the context of the subject matter being within the purview of the jurisdiction of a particular forum or as to whether the forum has jurisdiction or not, being not uncommon, even when in judicial parlance, the legal question of jurisdiction has given rise to endless litigation and innumerable decisions not necessarily uniform, but many a times conflicting decisions have come into existence and expecting the revenue authorities like the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner to have a clear perception of the concept of jurisdiction is nothing short of aspiring for the Moon itself!

2. On the other hand, the tendency on the part of the executive and administrative authorities is to grab jurisdiction, clutch at jurisdiction as these authorities are accustomed to exercising power and interfere with the decisions of the authorities in the lower rank because of their superior position, acting more like an administrative authority whether or not the statute has expressly conferred such jurisdiction on a higher authority.

3. The dividing line between the administrative function and quasi judicial function is too fine and too blurred and such uncertainty is more often taken advantage of by the revenue authorities to exercise jurisdiction than to be wary and to confine within their power and authority as conferred by the statute!

4. The present writ petition though in terms of subject matter is a trivial one and more often than not, such matters are not worthy of examination in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, has nevertheless, thrown up question of some significance and importance, particularly, one of the question of the scope of revisional jurisdiction, which can be exercised by a Deputy Commissioner while functioning under section 136[3] of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short ‘the Act’] and as to the scope and width of this statutory provision.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the writ petitioner claims right, title and interest in respect of an extent of 2 acres 30 guntas in land in Sy.No.204 of Kemboothagere Village, Kasaba Hobli, Malavalli Taluk, claiming as a successor in interest of one Devegowda and on the premise that said Devegowda had acquired interest in this parcel of agricultural land as per sale deed dated 11.01.1980 in respect of an extent of 1 acre of land, another extent of 1 acre in the same survey number under re-grant order of the year 1947 and yet another extent of 30 guntas of land as per order passed by the Land Tribunal, Malavalli, in LRF.PR.196, 197/1975-76 dated 18.02.1981.

6. It is the version of the writ petitioner that the revenue records did show the name of the petitioner to this extent till the extent of 30 guntas of land was mutated in favour of the first respondent in MR No.26/2009-10, in RRT No.178/2003-04 as per order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Tahsildar, Malavalli [copy at Annexure-A].

7. Writ petitioner aggrieved by this order, had preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner under section 136[2] of the Act and met with success as the Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the Tahsildar for fresh round of inquiry etc., as per order dated 26.10.2010 [copy at Annexure-B].

8. However, the first respondent preferred a revision to the Deputy Commissioner invoking section 136[3] of the Act. The Deputy Commissioner entertained the revision petition and passed the interim order in the revision petition, permitting the revision petitioner i.e., the first respondent in this writ petition to harvest the standing sugarcane crop and it is this interim order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the pending revision petition before him that has given cause to the writ pe