Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1173 (KAR)

State of Karnataka v. Chikkamunivenkatappa

2015-10-08

RAM MOHAN REDDY

body2015
ORDER : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. This petition is listed for 'Being Spoken To' since, on 5-10-2015, when the learned Additional Advocate General was heard for the petitioners-State, an order was passed rejecting the petition with liberty to invoke the inherent jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner to recall his order dated 30-7-2010 in Revision Petition No. 213 of 2005-06. It was not brought to the notice of the Court that under Sections 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short 'Act') a Revenue Officer, not below the rank of a Tahsildar exercising power under the 'Act', to inquire into or to decide any question arising, for determination between the State Government and any person or between parties to any proceedings, shall be a Revenue Court. Yet again, it was not brought to the notice of the Court that the learned Single Judge in State of Karnataka through the Deputy Commissioner, Gulbarga and Another v Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore and Another 1995(5) Kar. L.J. 305 : AIR 1996 Kant. 143, having regard to Sections 24 and 25 of the said 'Act' held, where the order is palpably wrong and suffered from error apparent on the face of the record, and if that order is allowed to remain in operation it may result in abuse of the process of the Court or it may result miscarriage of justice, the Revenue Court under Section 25 has power to review or recall its order. 2. It is in this perspective, that this petition is listed for being spoken to. 3. Although the order dictated on 5-10-2015 was with reference to the decision of the Apex Court in Green View Tea and Industries v Collector, Golaghat, Assam and Another AIR 2004 SC 1738 : (2004)4 SCC 122 : 2004 AIR SCW 1347, declaring the law that inherent jurisdiction is available to the authority which could be invoked in respect of an act of Court so as to not to prejudice any person. That order, since not autographed, in the circumstances, is recalled. 4. The controversy as ascertained from the learned Additional Advocate General is that, the Tahsildar, at the first instance did not record, in the Revenue Registers, the extent of land in Sy. That order, since not autographed, in the circumstances, is recalled. 4. The controversy as ascertained from the learned Additional Advocate General is that, the Tahsildar, at the first instance did not record, in the Revenue Registers, the extent of land in Sy. No. 51 of Kembatahalli, as 8 acres 5 guntas; 1st respondent instituted an appeal under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'Act'), whence the Assistant Commissioner set aside the order of the Tahsildar and directed the Tahsildar to record the name of the 1st respondent and correct the entries over the extent of land as 8 acres 5 guntas in place of 5 acres 5 guntas, by order dated 27-6-2003 in R.A.(S) No. 62/2003-04; one Manjunath, S/o Rudrahanumaiah, filed R.A.(S) No. 64/2003-04 before the Assistant Commissioner arraigning 1st respondent herein as a respondent therein, questioning the mutation entry in respect of land bearing Sy. No. 51 of Kembatahalli, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which was allowed by order dated 30-6-2003; first respondent filed Revision Petition No. 213 of 2005-06 before the Special Deputy Commissioner, whence, by order dated 30-7-2010, Annexure-A allowed the revision, set aside the order dated 30-6-2003 in R.A. No. 64/2003-04 and confirmed the order dated 27-6-2003 in R.A.(S) No. 62/2003-04 to correct the entries in column (3) of RTC in the name of 1st respondent as per original grant order; first respondent filed W.P. No. 3288 of 2013, for a writ of mandamus to comply with the order of the Deputy Commissioner, whence a learned Single Judge by order dated 15-7-2014, recorded the submission of learned Additional Government Advocate for the State that the land in Sy. No. 51 did not measure 8 acres 5 guntas, but in fact, measured 5 acres 5 guntas, as noticed by the Tahsildar in the endorsement which stood quashed and a direction issued to the Tahsildar to comply with the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner; that order when not complied with, led to filing CCC No. 979 of 2015, whence, the Contempt Court declined to hear the plea of the State over actual measurement of the land and that it could not comply with the direction of the Special Deputy Commissioner. Hence this petition filed on 22nd September, 2015 calling in question the order dated 30-7-2010 in Revision Petition No. 213 of 2005-06. Hence this petition filed on 22nd September, 2015 calling in question the order dated 30-7-2010 in Revision Petition No. 213 of 2005-06. If regard is had to the decision of this Court in Karnataka Appellate Tribunal's case, and having regard to Sections 24 and 25 of the 'Act', there is no more doubt in the mind of the Court that if the order dated 30-7-2010 in Revision Petition No. 213 of 2005-06, occasioned an error apparent on the face of the record and if remains in operation, may result in abuse of process of Court. It is for the petitioner-State and the Tahsildar whose order was carried in revision before the Special Deputy Commissioner to make an application seeking review of the order of Deputy Commissioner and not come rushing to Court invoking Article 227 of the Constitution. Petition is rejected subject to above observations.