Point of Law : Under Section 136(2) and (3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the revenue officials cannot decide the question involving the title and possession.

JUDGMENT :

The appellant has assailed the validity of the order dated 01.10.2020 passed by learned single Judge by which the writ petition preferred by respondent No.3 has been allowed and the order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the Tahsildar under the Section 140(2) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) has been quashed.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly stated are that appellant claims to be the owner of land measuring 1 acre and 4.08 guntas of land bearing Sy.No.91/1A (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question' for short). The authorities under the Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act, 1976 took possession of the land in question. The appellant challenged the order passed by the authorities under the Act before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which by an order dated 07.03.1998 directed restoration of land to the appellant. In compliance of the order passed by the tribunal, the name of the appellant was restored in the revenue records. The appellant filed the suit viz., O.S.No.26187/2014 seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the respondent No.3 from interfering with the peaceful possession in respect of land in question.

3. It is the case of the appellant that even though the land was restored in favour of the appellant, it was not possible to identify the boundary of the land in question and therefore, the appellant made an application to the Deputy Commissioner to fix the boundaries, which was forwarded to the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar thereupon initiated proceeding and issued notice to respondent No.3 and others and thereafter passed an order on 22.02.2019 directing the Assistant Director of Land Records, Bangalore East Taluk to take steps to fix the boundaries of the land in question. The respondent No.3 challenged the aforesaid order in a writ petition. The learned Single Judge by an order dated 14.08.2019 allowed the writ petition and remitted the matter to the Tahsildar to examine the issue with regard to jurisdiction and thereafter to proceed to adjudicate the claim on merits.

4. The Tahsildar by an order dated 13.11.2019 held that he has jurisdiction to fix the boundaries of the land in question in view of Section 61(1)(h) and Section 140 of the Act. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in a writ petition preferred by respondent No.3. The learned single Judge by an order dated 01.10.2020 allowed the writ petition and has inter alia held that Tahsildar has no jurisdiction to fix the boundaries. The order passed by the Tahsildar has been quashed. In the aforesaid factual background this appeal has been filed.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submitted that learned Single Judge erred in holding that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to fix the boundaries in respect of land in question on the ground that the same is situated within the limit of Municipal Corporation. It is also urged that Section 61(2)(h) of the Act read with Section 140(2) of the Act empowers the Tahsildar to decide the issue with regard to fixation of boundary. It is further submitted that Tahsildar has jurisdiction to pass the impugned order for fixing the boundary in respect of land in question. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on decision of this Court in THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS VS. SMT. H.J. SHANKUNTHALAMMA', ILR 2007 KAR 5106.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the revenue authority has jurisdiction to conduct the survey and to fix the boundaries in respect of the land situated within the limits of Municipal Corporation also. Learned Senior counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the lands in question are converted and are situated within the limits of BBMP and therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the land in question as the same is not revenue Land. In support of aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed on division bench dec