Petitioner is aggrieved by the Deputy Commissioner's

order dated 14.10.2022 passed under Section 136(3) of the

Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (Annexure-F) whereby

he has set aside Assistant Commissioner's order dated

25.01.2017 (Annexure-B) passed under Section 25 of the

1964 Act in exercise of inherent power. Learned counsel for

the Petitioner submits that the Deputy Commissioner being

the revisional authority could not have set aside an order

made under inherent jurisdiction at all, since revision lies

against the order made under Section 136(2) and not under

Section 25 of the 1964 Act.

2.

Learned

AGA

appearing

for

the

official

Respondents, notice to private Respondents having been

4

dispensed with, opposes the petition contending that

Section 136(2) of the 1964 Act vests Appellate power in the

Assistant Commissioner and therefore, in the absence of a

specific enabling provision, he could not have revised the

order dated 24.08.2016 rendered in earlier RRT (A) (T)

11/2009-2010. Therefore, learned AGA contends that the

order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be readily

faltered. Learned AGA also points out that arguably the land

mentioned in the Sale Deed dated 01.10.1966 (Annexure-

A) is different from the one in respect of which the Assistant

Commissioner had made the order. So contending, he

seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.

3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines

indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, it has been a settled

position of law that the order made by the Assistant

Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the 1964 Act is not

susceptible to review at his own hands, as observed by a

5

Co-ordinate

Bench

of

this

Court

in

THE

TALUKA

PANCHAYATH vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA, ILR 1990 KAR

1730. The purpose of inherent powers are different from

that of review and therefore, what is not intended by the

legislature cannot be made use of by exercising the powers

of review.

In view of the above, the Writ Petition is disposed off

reserving liberty to the Petitioner to lay a challenge to the

order of the Assistant Commissioner made on 24.08.2016

after seeking the condonation of delay, if any.

It hardly needs to be stated that in matters like this,

ordinarily, the delay needs to be viewed leniently more

particularly in the light of decision of SRIMANMAHARAJA

NIRANJANA

JAGADGURU

MALLIKARJUNA

MURUGARAJENDRA

MAHASWAMY

VS.

DEPUTY

COMMISSIONER, ILR 1986 KAR 1059 that the legislature

6

has not prescribed any limitation for review of course

subject to all just exceptions. All contentions are kept open.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS