ORDER

R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):

The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order dated 02.11.2020 at Annexure-A, which is an order in review passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District.

2. A brief background may be required to understand the dispute that was brought before the Deputy Commissioner. One Smt.Padma Hegde acquired 2.78 Acres of land in terms of a Partition Deed dated 05.01.2008. Smt.Padma Hegde, disposed of various pieces of land under six sale deeds during the year 2009 to 2020. What remained with Smt.Padma Hegde was 1.9450 Acres. The petitioner herein had entered into an agreement dated 15.06.2009 in respect of 1.88 Acres through the Power of Attorney Holder of Smt.Padma Hedge. When the owner of the property did not come forward for executing the absolute sale deed, the petitioner herein filed a suit in O.S.No.27/2012 for Specific Performance of the Contract.

3. It is contended that an order of Temporary Injunction was granted by the Senior Civil Judge at Kundapura, restraining the landlord from alienating the suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit. However, it is alleged that during the pendency of the suit and the order of Temporary Injunction being in force, the 4th respondent herein who was the Advocate appearing for Smt.Padma Hedge purchased the suit schedule property through another Power of Attorney Holder of Smt.Padma Hegde, who was also her brother. The sale deed was got executed on 08.06.2015. Nevertheless, the suit was decreed on 15.07.2015 with a direction to the defendant- Smt.Padma Hegde to execute a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff/petitioner. Smt.Padma Hegde filed a regular appeal in R.A.No.3/2015 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge, calling in question the order passed by the trial court. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent herein sought to get his name entered in the land records. The respondent-Tahsildar allowed the application and issued a direction to enter the name of the 4th respondent in the land record on the strength of the registered sale deed. The said order of the Tahsildar was questioned by the petitioner herein before the Assistant Commissioner in RRT(2) SR 31/2016-17, wherein the 4th respondent was arraigned as 2nd respondent. The Assistant Commissioner dismissed the appeal and consequently, the petitioner approached the Deputy Commissioner invoking the revisional powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1964’, for short). The Deputy Commissioner allowed the Revision Petition by order dated 11.12.2017 while setting aside the order of the Special Tahsildar and directed restoration of the name of Smt.Padma Hegde in the land records.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that although an order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 11.12.2017 directing restoration of name of Smt.Padma Hegde in the land records, in the meanwhile, the 4th respondent herein filed applications before the Additional District and Sessions Court in the regular appeal seeking to implead himself. Learned Counsel submits that all such applications were dismissed by the regular appellate court. Thereafter, the 4th respondent herein moved the Deputy Commissioner to invoke his power of review in terms of Section 25 of the Act. As a consequence of such an application being filed at the hands of the 4th respondent, the Deputy Commissioner has passed the impugned order on

02.11.2020 at Annexure-A, recalling his own order while allowing the review petition and directing the respondent- Tahsildar to enter the name of the 4th respondent on the strength of the registered sale deed.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order cannot be sustained, because the Deputy Commissioner could not have passed the impugned order reviewing his own order invoking Section 25 of the Act. Moreover, it is submitted that the earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner directing the restoration of th