Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 908 (KAR)

Komala v. Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District

2018-08-20

B.V.NAGARATHNA

body2018
JUDGMENT : B.V. NAGARATHNA, J. 1. Though this writ petition is listed for removal of objections raised on I.A. No. 1 of 2018, learned Counsel for petitioners submits that a copy of I.A. No. 1 of 2018 has been served on learned Counsel for respondent 5, who acknowledges receipt of the same. The office objection is thus removed. With the consent of learned Counsel on both sides, this petition is heard finally. 2. Petitioners have assailed order dated 3-3-2017 passed in R.A. No. 208/2012-13 by respondent 2-Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Sub-Division, Hassan, vide Annexure-G; as well as endorsement dated 16-9-2017 passed in R.P. No. 39/2017-18 by respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner vide Annexure-J. 3. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4 and learned Counsel for respondent 5. 4. The controversy in this writ petition lies in a very narrow compass. Learned Counsel for petitioners drew my attention to Annexure-J, which is an endorsement issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner, on the instructions of respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner, stating that parties would have to avail the remedy of filing a suit before the Civil Court and, therefore, revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for the sake of brevity), would be concluded in terms of the said endorsement. He submits that when a revision petition has been filed under Section 136(3) of the aforesaid Act, the said proceedings is a quasi-judicial proceedings assailing order dated 3-3-2017, which is at Annexure-G. Therefore, respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner ought to have adjudicated the revision petition instead of directing Additional Deputy Commissioner to issue an endorsement as per Annexure-J. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 as well as learned Counsel appearing for respondent 5 very fairly submit that such an endorsement could not have been issued by Additional Deputy Commissioner in a revision petition filed by the petitioners under Section 136(3) of the Act. The endorsement at Annexure-J reads as under: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6. On perusal of the same, it is noted that such an endorsement directs petitioners to seek remedy before the Civil Court, which is in the nature of an administrative direction in a quasi-judicial proceedings, which is impermissible in law. The endorsement at Annexure-J reads as under: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 6. On perusal of the same, it is noted that such an endorsement directs petitioners to seek remedy before the Civil Court, which is in the nature of an administrative direction in a quasi-judicial proceedings, which is impermissible in law. When a revision petition is filed under Section 136(3) of the Act, it is the duty of Deputy Commissioner to appreciate the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order i.e. order passed under Section 136(3) of the Act and adjudicate upon the same. In the absence of such an adjudication, the endorsement as extracted above could not have been issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, on the instructions of respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner. On that short ground alone, the impugned endorsement is liable to be quashed. In the circumstances, endorsement at Annexure-J, dated 16-9-2017 is quashed. The revision petition filed by petitioners is restored on the file of respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner. Respondent 1 is directed to adjudicate the said revision petition in accordance with law. As the parties are represented by their respective Counsel, they are directed to appear before respondent 1 on 24-9-2018 without expecting any notices from the said authority. Writ petition is disposed off in the aforesaid terms.