The court held that the suo motu powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act cannot be invoked to annul long-standing and maintained revenue entries, emphasizing timely legal action and jurisdictional limits.

ORDER :

R. DEVDAS, J.

The petitioner is aggrieved of the suo motu action initiated at the hands of the Revenue Authorities, invoking Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner purchased 2 acres of land out of 5 acres in Sy.No.74 of Avathi Village, Kasaba Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, under a registered sale deed dated 10.12.1986. Originally the said 5 acres were granted in favour of Sri.Abdul Lathief on 07.08.1950. The land granted to Sri.Abdul Lathief was identified as Block No.1 in Sy. No.74, and in a partition within the family of Sri.Abdul Lathief, 1 acre each fell to the share of his sons. The vendor of the petitioner, Sri.Ubedulla Sharief, purchased 1 acre from his father, Sri.Abdul Lathief, who had retained 1 acre of land in the partition, under a registered sale deed dated 20.01.1981. The petitioner purchased 2 acres of land from Sri.Ubedulla Sharief, under a registered sale deed dated 10.12.1986 and mutation was effected in terms of M.R.No.6/1986-87. When that being the position, proceedings were initiated at the instance of the Tahsildar, the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, invoking suo motu powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, more than six decades after the land was granted to Sri.Abdul Lathief.

-

3. The impugned order dated 30.01.2024 has been passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, holding that the original records do not evidence the fact that 5 acres of land were granted to Sri.Abdul Lathief and in fact, the land has been earmarked as ‘Gunduthopu’.

-

4. Learned Counsel submits that similar actions in large numbers were noticed by this Court in the case of Kunnappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in 2011 SCC Online Kar 4103 and this Court framed the issues to be considered as a) it is an order passed by the very authority in the third round of the exercise of power under Section 136(3) of the Act; (b) it is an order which is reasonably elaborate running to as many as 35 pages and though a good number of such orders have been found fault with by this Court and even quashed and many such orders have been virtually conceded by the State Government as they only deserve to be quashed, a spirited defence by the State Government in these petitions and the learned Special Government Advocate who appeared on behalf of the State and other statutory authorities to re-agitate the powers conferred on the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act, this Court held as follows:

-

19. This Court exercising judicial review does not sit in appeal over the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities whether under Section 136(2) or Section 136(3) of the Act, but what is reviewed is the manner of functioning of the authority and as to whether the power is really available for the action taken and as to whether power is exercised in a proper, bona fide manner.

20. The power under Section 136(3) of the Act is only for correcting the revenue entries based on the action taken by the Tahsildar either under Section 127 or under Section 129 of the Act. Neither the Tahsildar nor the Revisional Authority have any power to characterise the quality of the transaction based on which entries have been made. As to whether the order based on which some entry whether took place or not in the year 1972 as claimed by the writ petitioners and not a real entry but a false entry even as submitted by Sri Krishnamurthy, learned Special Government Advocate, as it is submitted that two sets of entries are found in the revenue records, is a question not merely confining to the correctness or otherwise of entry made by the Tahs