Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 10329
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R Devdas, J
R NAGARAJU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO. 12499 OF 2024 (KLR-RES)
For the Appellants/Petitioners: C.H. Jadhav, Sagar B.B.
For the Respondents: B.P. Radha, Sreenivasa D.C.
A revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, regarding revenue entries, does not grant the Deputy Commissioner the jurisdiction to set aside or quash orders passed under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
Headnote:The case involves the interpretation of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. The petitioners challenged an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in a revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act, wherein the Deputy Commissioner set aside multiple orders previously passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the PTCL Act. The court found that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by quashing orders passed under a separate special act while exercising powers related to revenue entries. The primary issue was whether a revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act pertaining to revenue entries empowers the Deputy Commissioner to set aside orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the PTCL Act. The court reasoned that a revision petition pertaining to revenue entries under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act does not empower the Deputy Commissioner to set aside orders passed under the PTCL Act. In the light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 09.01.2024 at Annexure-G passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District in proceedings bearing R.P.No.76/2020, is hereby quashed and set aside.
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS; QUASHING THE ORDER DTD 09.01.2024 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN NO.76/2020(RD 005-0000290734) PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G. GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THAT PART OF THE ORDER DTD 09.01.24 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN NO. 76/20 (RD 005-0000290734) THEREBY DIRECTING THE TAHSILDAR TO CONTINUE THE NAME OF THE R5 IN RTC COL NO.11 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-G.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are aggrieved of the impugned order dated 09.01.2024 at Annexure-G, passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District in proceedings bearing number R.P.No.76/2020.
The 5th respondent had filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Mysore Sub-Division in R.A.No.200/2014 under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KLR Act’, for short) calling in question the mutation order in M.R.No.H59/2012-13. The Assistant Commissioner noticed the fact that the mutation order in M.R.No.H59/2012-13 was passed by the Tahsildar pursuant to the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner in PTCL No.86/1979-80 dated 02.07.1982 under the provisions of Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the PTCL Act’, for short.) That being the position, the Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal. There were some typographical errors in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and therefore, on an application filed under Section 58 of the KLR Act, the Assistant Commissioner passed an order on 19.08.2020 correcting the typographical errors. Similarly, one more order was passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 24.08.2020 making some corrections. Nevertheless, the 5th respondent thereafter filed a revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner in R.P.No.76/2020 challenging the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner, under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act. The Deputy Commissioner, while noticing that there were three sets of orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the proceedings under the PTCL Act, one in PTCL No.86/1979-80 dated 02.07.1982 where the application is rejected; in PTCL No.70/1979-80 dated 22.09.1982 where the application is allowed and the lands in question are directed to be resumed in favour of the Government and to be restored in favour of the legal heirs of the original grantee; in PTCL No.71/1979-1980 dated 15.03.1983 the application is rejected. Regard being had to the three orders, the Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision petition and set aside all the three orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the PTCL Act.
Learned Senior Counsel, Sri. C.H. Jadhav, appearing for the petitioners submitted that it was impermissible for the Deputy Commissioner to have quashed the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of the PTCL Act, in a revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act.
In the meanwhile, today Sri.Srinivasa D.C., learned Counsel seeks to file an impleading application on behalf of one Sri.Chikkaramaiah, who is said to be one of the two grantees of the land in question. Learned Counsel submits that another grantee, Sri.Doddaramaiah is no more. However, pursuant to the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the PTCL proceedings, when the lands were restored in favour of the original grantees, the lands were in fact restored in favour of the Sri.Chikkaramaiah who is alive even till today. The petitioners before this Court who claim to be the legal heirs of the original grantees - Sri.Doddaramaiah and Sri.Chikkaramaiah are imposters and they are not the legal heirs of the original grantees. With these contentions the impleading applicant seeks t
