Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1006 (KAR)

Taluka Panchyath v. State Of Karnataka

2021-12-14

P.KRISHNA BHAT, P.S.DINESH KUMAR

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. The short question that arises for consideration before us in these appeals is whether the power under Sec. 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, the 'Act') is available to be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner when there is no enquiry/revenue proceedings pending before him for adjudication and whether after an Order has been passed in a revision petition under Sec. 136(3) of the Act, can he exercise power under Sec. 25 of the Act for annulling such an Order? 2. These intra-court appeals are filed by the State of Karnataka and the Taluk Panchayat, Chamarajanagara, calling in question, the Order dtd. 26.02.2009 passed in W.P. No.16438/2007 (KLR-RR/SUR) by an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court allowing the writ petition and directing the appellants herein to make entries of the names of respondents/petitioners in the writ petition, in the record of rights by way of inheritance khata in respect of lands bearing Sy.No.458 measuring 3 acres 35 guntas and Sy.No.459 measuring 3 acres 15 guntas in Chamarajanagara, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagara Taluk. 3. The facts in so far as the same are necessary for deciding these appeals are concerned lie in a short compass. There is no dispute about the fact that one Sri. C.V. Srinivasan, father of Sri. C.S. Purushotham (one of the petitioners in W.P. No.16438/2007) was the original owner of the two items of lands in dispute in these proceedings, namely, 3 acres and 35 guntas in Sy. No.458 and 3 acres and 15 guntas in Sy.No.459 of Chamarajanagara, Kasaba Hobli, Chamarajanagara Taluk, having purchased them from one Sri K.T. Somaiah by a registered sale deed dtd. 24/8/1949 who in turn had earlier purchased them from one Sri A.E.Morris on 14.07.1947. There is also no dispute about the fact that after late C.V. Srinivasan purchased the land, RTC entries were made in his name on 12/3/1964 as per proceedings in MR 388/64-65 dtd. 12/3/1964. On finding out subsequently that name of late C.V. Srinivasan was abruptly deleted by the Revenue Authorities and the name of vendor of Srinivasan 's vendor Sri A.E. Morris was re- entered in the revenue records, now deceased C.V. Purushotham and others initiated proceedings for getting their names re-entered in the revenue records (RTC) by way of inheritance khata. 4. On finding out subsequently that name of late C.V. Srinivasan was abruptly deleted by the Revenue Authorities and the name of vendor of Srinivasan 's vendor Sri A.E. Morris was re- entered in the revenue records, now deceased C.V. Purushotham and others initiated proceedings for getting their names re-entered in the revenue records (RTC) by way of inheritance khata. 4. It is not necessary to refer in great detail to the tortuous course taken by the revenue proceedings and suffice it to state that by an Order dtd. 22.11.2006, the Deputy Commissioner, Chamarajanagara District, sitting as a Revenue Court, passed an Order in R.A. No.10/2006-07 (Annexure-A to the writ petition), which is to the following effect: "This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content." 5. The above Order shows that learned Deputy Commissioner, sitting as a Revenue Court, in exercise of power under Sec. 136(3) of the Act has found that removal of name of late C.V. Srinivasan from the revenue records was illegal, unauthorised and in violation of law and therefore he had ordered restoration of the names of the petitioners before him in the revenue records in respect of two items of lands as per the earlier Order dtd. 12.03.1964 and further directed his subordinate officials to put up the file for initiating acquisition proceedings obviously on account of the fact that various Government Offices had come up in the two items of lands in violation of the proprietary rights of the petitioners before him over the said lands. 6. Subsequently, a successor Deputy Commissioner to the one who had passed the Order dtd. 22.11.2006 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) purporting to exercise power under Sec. 25 of the Act passed another Order dtd. 20.06.2007 annulling the Order dtd. 22.11.2006 proceeding to reject the revision petition filed by the writ petitioners in R.A.No.10/2006-07. It is the latter Order of the Deputy Commissioner dtd. 20.06.2007 that was called in question before the Hon'ble Single Judge in W.P.No.16438/2007 and by the impugned Order dtd. 26.02.2009, writ petition came to be allowed and Order dtd. 20.06.2007 (Annexure-B) was quashed with directions as indicated above. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the Order dtd. 22.11.2006 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) came to be passed allowing the revision application filed under Sec. 136(3) of the Act by the writ petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner. 26.02.2009, writ petition came to be allowed and Order dtd. 20.06.2007 (Annexure-B) was quashed with directions as indicated above. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that the Order dtd. 22.11.2006 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) came to be passed allowing the revision application filed under Sec. 136(3) of the Act by the writ petitioners before the Deputy Commissioner. None of the appellants herein had chosen to challenge the said order before the competent Authority/Court. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the said Order (Annexure-A) had become final. However, in purported exercise of the power under Sec. 25 of the Act, learned Deputy Commissioner (Sri K. Vishwanatha Reddy, IAS) took up R.A. No.10/2006-07, over which he had become functus officio and issued notice to the parties and thereafter passed the Order, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: "This content is in vernacular language. Kindly email us at info@legitquest.com for this content." By the above Order he has set at naught the earlier Order of his predecessor dtd. 22.11.2006 and he has restored the Order of the Assistant Commissioner, Kollegal dtd. 27.02.2006. 8. The question, therefore, now is, whether in exercise of the power under Sec. 25 of the Act, learned Deputy Commissioner could have reviewed the earlier Order of his predecessor referred to hereinabove. 9. For adjudicating the above question it is necessary to make a reference to Sec. 24 and 25 of the Act: "24. Revenue Officers to be Revenue Courts. - A Revenue Officer, not below the rank of a Tahasildar while exercising power under this Act, or any other law for the time being in force, 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. 25. Saving of inherent powers of a Revenue Court.- Nothing in this Act, shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Revenue Court." 10. The conjoint reading of the above makes it abundantly clear that the power under Sec. 25 of the Act is available to be exercised only by the 'Revenue Court ' and not by individual Revenue Officers. The conjoint reading of the above makes it abundantly clear that the power under Sec. 25 of the Act is available to be exercised only by the 'Revenue Court ' and not by individual Revenue Officers. It is true that Revenue Courts are constituted by Revenue Officers not below the rank of a Tahsildar which means and includes the Deputy Commissioner as well. However it is also clear from the above that a Revenue Officer not below the rank of a Tahsildar can constitute a Revenue Court only under the following circumstances: (i) The Revenue Officer in question not below the rank of a Tahsildar should be exercising power under the Act or any other law for the time being in force; (ii) Such power as he is exercising must be for the purpose of inquiring into or to decide any question arising in any proceedings; (iii) Exercising such power must be for the determination of any question between the State Government and any person or between parties to any proceedings. 11. It is only when all the above ingredients are satisfied can the Revenue Officer constitute himself as a 'Revenue Court '. In other words, merely because a Revenue Officer holds an Office not inferior in rank to that of a Tahsildar, he cannot constitute himself as a Revenue Court. It is therefore axiomatic that under Sec. 25 of the Act, inherent powers in the purported exercise of which the impugned Order (Annexure-B) has been passed could not have been passed by the Deputy Commissioner as there was no proceeding pending before him for inquiry and therefore, he could not, in law, be a 'Revenue Court '. 12. Having passed the earlier Order dtd. 22.11.2006 vide Annexure-A, he had become functus officio in relation to the proceedings in RA 10/2006-07. By placing reliance on a decision reported in ILR 1981 KAR 1309 (SIDDESHWAR YUVAK MANDAL BY ITS CHAIRMAN vs. STATE AND ANOTHER), an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in MALAPRABHA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in ILR 1990 KAR 1730, has observed as follows: "13. It follows therefore that where a Revenue Officer not below the rank of a Tahsildar enquires into a dispute or adjudicates any right between the State Government and parties, he becomes a Revenue Court; while so functioning as Revenue Court, he can exercise inherent powers as contemplated under Sec. 25. It follows therefore that where a Revenue Officer not below the rank of a Tahsildar enquires into a dispute or adjudicates any right between the State Government and parties, he becomes a Revenue Court; while so functioning as Revenue Court, he can exercise inherent powers as contemplated under Sec. 25. If no proceedings are pending under Sec. 24 before the Revenue Officer, he does not become a Revenue Court to exercise inherent power under Sec. 25. Sec. 25 is similar to Sec. 151 C.P.C. which is available to the Courts. Every Revenue Officer per se is not entitled to exercise the power under Sec. 25 unless he functions, as a Revenue Court in respect of any proceeding. In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner did not have any proceeding before him regarding which he was holding enquiry as contemplated under Sec. 24. Therefore it is obvious that he could not have invoked the inherent powers given to the (Revenue Court. Sec. 25 has no independent existence (available to Revenue Officer to invoke it as and when he likes. In this context, learned single Judge of this Court in SIDDESHWAR YUVAK MANDAL v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., has observed that Sec. 25 of the Land Revenue Act is in pari-materia with Sec. 151 of the C.P.C. and the power of that Sec. cannot be used to assume jurisdiction which the Court does not otherwise possess. Therefore the impugned order cannot be sustained under Sec. 25 of the Land Revenue Act." We respectfully agree with the above interpretation of the power under Sec. 25 of the Act. 13. In that view of the matter, there is absolutely no error or illegality in the impugned Order passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge and accordingly there is no merit in these appeals and they are liable to be dismissed. Hence we pass the following: ORDER The Writ Appeal No.343/2010 along with connected case namely, Writ Appeal No.3902/2010 are devoid of merits and accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. No Costs.