Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1003 (KAR)

VINODKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2017-07-04

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2017
ORDER : K.N. Phaneendra, J. The petitioners have called in question the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner in RTC-CR-480/2011-12 dated 21.02.2013 as per Annexure-E and also the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in RTS/RI/12/2013-14 dated 06.10.2016 marked as Annexure-G. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 and also the learned counsel for caveators/ respondents 5 to 11. 3. The facts of the case are that, a person by name Keshava Goudagoudar Patil has made a request to the Assistant Commissioner for fixing the boundaries as per the sale deeds pertaining to Sy. No. 219/6 of Mannikeri village, Bilagi Tq, Bagalkot District purchased by various persons to different extents. The Assistant Commissioner has directed the surveyor, Bilagi, to inspect the spot and submit the report to him for fixing akarband and boundaries. Accordingly, the surveyor has conducted a survey on 23.07.2011 and also on 12.08.2011 in the presence of the respective parties and thereafter submitted a report to the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner re-fixed the akarband and boundaries to the extent of the lands mentioned in the survey report submitted by the Taluka Surveyor. According to the said survey report the petitioner being the last purchaser of the property, the extent of his land has been reduced to 12 guntas as against 36 guntas purchased by him under a registered sale deed. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Assistant Commissioner the petitioner has approached the Deputy Commissioner by way of revision. 4. It is contended specifically in the revision petition and as well before this Court that the Assistant Commissioner has no jurisdiction to direct the surveyor to conduct the survey and to pass any original order. It is the Tahsildar who is the Competent Authority to take the assistance of the Surveyor or the Additional Director of Land Records and the Tahsildar has to pass the original order fixing the akarband and boundaries to the properties to the extent available. Instead of that, the Assistant Commissioner has passed the order. Though that specific stand has been taken, the Deputy Commissioner has touched upon the said point, instead he simply confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 5. In view of the above said background the learned counsel has taken me through the various provisions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules. Though that specific stand has been taken, the Deputy Commissioner has touched upon the said point, instead he simply confirmed the order of the Assistant Commissioner. 5. In view of the above said background the learned counsel has taken me through the various provisions under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act and Rules. The Karnataka Land Revenue Rules 1966, Rule 50 is the provision, where it empowers the Tahsildar to measure the land and fix the akarband and boundaries and also permits him for maping. sub-clause (3) of Rule 50 reads as under: "50. Mode of measurement and mapping ' " (3) After the mutation is certified by a Competent Authority if any of the holders applied to the Tahsildar that the boundaries of each hissa shall be laid down in accordance with the entries in the Record of Rights, the Tahsildar shall, after issuing notices to all the other interested parties and holding such enquiry as he considers necessary, direct the Surveyor to lay down the boundaries accordingly and the Surveyor shall do so if he has not already sub-divided the land by then.' ? - - - 6. This particular provision empowers the Tahsildar to take appropriate steps for the purpose of fixing the boundaries when mutation is accepted in respect of the properties acquired by the parties. As per Rule 50 sub-rule (3) the Tahsildar is the competent authority to fix up the boundaries of each hissa according to the certified entries in the record of rights. For this purpose the Tahsildar is the competent authority to issue notice to all the interested parties and hold an enquiry as he considers necessary and thereafter direct the Surveyor to lay down the boundaries. Accordingly, the Surveyor shall do so if he has not already sub-divided the land by then. 7. In this particular case the Assistant Commissioner has directed the Surveyor to measure the land and fix the boundaries. The Assistant Commissioner is only an appellate authority against any original order passed by the Tahsildar or by the Surveyor or by the ADLR fixing the boundaries after the mutation being certified and accepted, to each hissa in accordance with the entries by exercising their power under Rule 50 sub-clause (3). Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, the Assistant Commissioner has stepped into the shoes of the Tahsildar and passed the original order. Therefore, as rightly contended by the learned counsel, the Assistant Commissioner has stepped into the shoes of the Tahsildar and passed the original order. In my opinion, the Assistant Commissioner himself would not have stepped into the shoes of the Tahsildar for passing such orders. Therefore, the matter deserves to be remitted back to the Tahsildar with a direction to the Tahsildar to follow the procedure as contemplated under Rule 50 sub-clause (3) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after providing opportunity to both the parties. Consequently, the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner impugned under the writ petition deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, they are set aside. The Tahsildar is directed to issue notices to the respective parties and pass appropriate original order in accordance with law within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.