Karnataka High Court
V Ramananda Shetty vs Deputy Commissioner on 2 July, 2012
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2012
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.8215/2012(KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN:
V. RAMANANDA SHETTY
S/O. BABU SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
R/AT: 5/130, RATHA BEEDI,
VITTAL KASABA VILLAGE,
BANTWAL TALUK
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.G.RAVISHANKAR SHASTHRY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT
MANGALORE, D.K.
2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANGALORE SUB DIVISION,
MANGALORE, D.K.DISTRICT.
3. THASILDAR
BANTWAL TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT.
4. SRIMATH ANANTHESHWARA TEMPLE
VITTAL, BANTWAL TALUK,
D.K.DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY
ITS ADMINISTRATOR ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.R.B.SATHAYANARAYANA SINGH, HCGP FOR R1 TO
R3 AND R4-NOTICE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A
2
PRAYER TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2011
PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
D.K.DISTRICT, MANGALORE CERTIFIED COPY OF
WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners have sought for quashing of the order dated 16.11.2011, Annexure-A passed by first respondent and order dated 03.03.2011 in No.CDS/RRT/SR/182/09-10, Annexure-B passed by second respondent and also the order dated 20.03.2009 passed by third respondent in RRT/SR/14/06-07 at Annexure-C, whereunder mutation entry made in the name of petitioner was ordered to be deleted and was confirmed in Appeal and Revision filed by petitioner came to be dismissed as not maintainable.
2. Heard Sri.Ravishankar Shasthry, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Sathyanarayana Singh, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Notice to respondent No.4 is 3 dispensed with since no adverse order to the interest of respondent No.4 is passed in this writ petition.
3. Mother of petitioner, Smt.Lalitha Bai claims to have purchased the permanent mulageni rights of the land bearing Survey No.474/2 to an extent of 0.25 acres situated at Vittal Kasaba Village, Bantwal Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District, under a registered sale deed dated 12.03.1946 from Smt. Sundari Bai and mutation entry as per M.R.No.354/1938 came to be entered in the name of petitioner. After the death of the said Smt.Lalitha Bai, an application was made by fourth respondent to delete the name of petitioner from the revenue records and on considering said application order dated 20.07.2009, Annexure-C came to be passed by second respondent and deleted the name of petitioner from revenue records and directed the Tahsildar to enter the name of fourth respondent.
4. Being aggrieved by this order petitioner herein filed an appeal in RRT/SR/182/09-10 before second respondent. Said appeal came to be dismissed 4 by order dated 03.03.2011, Annexure-B. Petitioner being aggrieved by this order filed a revision in R.P.No.8/2011-12 before first respondent. Said revision petition came to be rejected on the ground that revision is not maintainable under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and accordingly dropped the revision proceedings. Aggrieved by this order petitioner is before this Court.
5. In similar circumstances Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.5546/2011 dated 22.11.2011 has held as follows:
"Learned Single Judge has also opined that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set aside the order of the Assistant Commissioner. WE ARE UNABLE TO SUBSCRIBE TO THIS VIEW IN the light of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Gururaj Gurunath Govind Rao Mutalik Desai vs. The State of Karnataka (AIR 1995 Kar. 267). This decision has recently been applied by a learned Single Judge in B.Mahadevaiah vs. State of Karnataka (2006(5) AIR Kar R.69). Therefore, the learned Single Judge in the instant case fell into error in holding the view that the Deputy Commissioner had proceeded without jurisdiction."
(Emphasis supplied by me) 5
6. In view of the said finding of Division Bench, I am of the considered view that endorsement issued to petitioner at Annexure-A dated 16.11.2011 is liable to be quashed and it is accordingly quashed. A direction is issued to first respondent to consider the revision petition filed by petitioner on merits and in accordance with law by taking into consideration the observation made by the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal referred to above after issuing notice to both the parties. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE DR