Back
2021 Supreme(Kar) 941
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
P.S.DINESH KUMAR, P.KRISHNA BHAT, JJ.
Taluka Panchyath – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Appeal No. 343/2010 (KLR-RR-SUR) C/W Writ Appeal No. 3902/2010 (KLR-RR-SUR)
Decided on : 14-12-2021
Advocate Appeared:
Ashok N.Nayak, Advocate, C.N.Mahadeshwaran, Advocate, G.R.Anantharam , Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Sec. 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is available to be exercised only by the 'Revenue Court' and not by individual Revenue Officers, and can only be exercised in the presence of pending proceedings for inquiry.
Headnote:
Sec. 25 - Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - The court discussed the power under Sec. 25 of the Act and its availability to the Deputy Commissioner when there is no pending enquiry or revenue proceedings before him for adjudication. The court also considered whether the Deputy Commissioner can exercise power under Sec. 25 of the Act for annulling an Order passed in a revision petition under Sec. 136(3) of the Act. The court interpreted Sec. 24 and 25 of the Act, highlighting that the power under Sec. 25 is available to be exercised only by the 'Revenue Court' and not by individual Revenue Officers. The court emphasized that the Deputy Commissioner could not have reviewed the earlier Order of his predecessor in the purported exercise of the power under Sec. 25 of the Act as there was no proceeding pending before him for inquiry, and therefore, he could not, in law, be a 'Revenue Court'. The court also referred to precedents to support its interpretation of the power under Sec. 25 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the restoration of names in the revenue records by way of inheritance khata in respect of certain lands. The Deputy Commissioner, in the exercise of power under Sec. 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, annulled an earlier Order passed in a revision petition under Sec. 136(3) of the Act, which was challenged in the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deputy Commissioner could not have exercised the power under Sec. 25 of the Act to review the earlier Order as there was no pending proceeding before him for inquiry, and therefore, he could not, in law, be a 'Revenue Court'. The court held that the impugned Order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge was without error or illegality and dismissed the appeals.
Issues: The key issues involved the interpretation of the power under Sec. 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and whether the Deputy Commissioner could exercise such power in the absence of pending proceedings before him for inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Sec. 24 and 25 of the Act, emphasizing that the power under Sec. 25 is available to be exercised only by the 'Revenue Court' and not by individual Revenue Officers. The court also referred to precedents to support its interpretation of the power under Sec. 25 of the Act.
Final Decision: The court held that the impugned Order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge was without error or illegality and dismissed the appeals.
JUDGMENT :
1. The short question that arises for consideration before us in these appeals is whether the power under Sec. 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, the 'Act') is available to be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner when there is no enquiry/revenue proceedings pending before him for adjudication and whether after an Order has been passed in a revision petition under Sec. 136(3) of the Act, can he exercise power under Sec. 25 of the Act for annulling such an Order?
2. These intra-court appeals are filed by the State of Karnataka and the Taluk Panchayat, Chamarajanagara, calling in question, the Order dtd. 26.02.2009 passed in W.P. No.16438/2007 (KLR-RR/SUR) by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition and directing the appellants herein to make entries of the names of respondents/petitioners in the writ petition, in the record of rights by way of inheritance khata in respect of lands bearing Sy.No.458 measuring 3 acres 35 guntas and Sy.No.459 measuring 3 acres 15 guntas in Chamarajanagara, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagara Taluk.
3. The facts in so far as the same are necessary for deciding these appeals are concerned lie in a short compass. There is no dispute about the fact that one Sri. C.V. Srinivasan, father of Sri. C.S. Purushotham (one of the petitioners in W.P. No.16438/2007) was the original owner of the two items of lands in dispute in these proceedings, namely, 3 acres and 35 guntas in Sy. No.458 and 3 acres and 15 guntas in Sy.No.459 of Chamarajanagara, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagara Taluk, having purchased them from one Sri K.T. Somaiah by a registered sale deed dtd. 24/8/1949 who in turn had earlier purchased them from one Sri A.E.Morris on 14.07.1947. There is also no dispute about the fact that after late C.V. Srinivasan purchased the land, RTC entries were made in his name on 12/3/1964 as per proceedings in MR 388/64-65 dtd. 12/3/1964. On finding out subsequently that name of late C.V. Srinivasan was abruptly deleted by the Revenue Authorities and the name of vendor of Srinivasan 's vendor Sri A.E. Morris was re- entered in the revenue records, now deceased C.V. Purushotham and others initiated proceedings for getting their names re-entered in the revenue records (RTC) by way of inheritance khata.
4. It is not necessary to refer in great detail to the tortuous course taken by the revenue proceedings and suffice it to state that by an Order dtd. 22.11.2006, the Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagara District, sitting as a Revenue Court, passed an Order in R.A. No.10/2006-07 (Annexure-A to the writ petition), which is to the following effect:
"This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content."
5. The above Order shows that learned Deputy Commissioner, sitting as a Revenue Court, in exercise of power under Sec. 136(3) of the Act has found that removal of name of late C.V. Srinivasan from the revenue records was illegal, unauthorised and in violation of law and therefore he had ordered restoration of the names of the petitioners before him in the revenue records in respect of two items of lands as per the earlier Order dtd. 12.03.1964 and further directed his subordinate officials to put up the file for initiating acquisition proceedings obviously on account of the fact that various Government Offices had come up in the two items of lands in violation of the proprietary rights of the petitioners before him over the said lands.
6. Subsequently, a successor Deputy Commissioner to the one who had passed the Order dtd. 22.11.2006 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) purporting to exercise power under Sec. 25 of the Act passed another Order dtd. 20.06.2007 annulling the Order dtd. 22.11.2006 proceeding to reject the revision petition filed by the writ petitioners in R.A.No.10/2006-07. It is the latter Order of the Deputy Commissioner dtd. 20.06.2007 that was called in question before the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.No.16438/2007 and by the
