Karnataka High Court
Thammanna Gowda Since Dead By Lrs vs The Deputy Commissioner on 7 November, 2017
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA
WRIT PETITION NOs.8404/2012 &
19261-19263/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR)
BETWEEN
1. THAMMANNA GOWDA
SINCE DEAD BY LRs.,
1(a) SMT SHARADAMMA
W/O LATE THAMMANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
1(b) SRI K T CHANDRASHEKARA
S/O LATE THAMMANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
1(c) SRI K.T. KANTHARAJU
S/O LATE THAMMANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
1(d) SMT SUDHAMANI
W/O H.S. SUNDRA
D/O LATE THAMMANNA GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
KUDARAGUNDI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK-571 401 ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE)
-2-
AND
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MANDYA DISTRICT
MANDYA
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
MANDYA SUB-DIVISION,
MANDYA
3. THE TAHASILDAR
MADDUR TALUK
MADDUR
4. THE REVENUE INSPECTOR
KASABA HOBLI,
FIRST CIRCLE, MADDUR
5. SMT K .B. VISHALAKSHI
W/O LATE H C NAGARAJU
MAJOR
R/A KUDARAGUNDI VILLAGE,
KASABA HOBLI,
MADDUR TALUK
6. SMT. LAXMAMMA
W/O NARAYANASWAMY
MAJOR
RESIDING AT MANGALWARPET,
CHENNAPATNA TALUK
DISTRICT RAMANAGARA ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI KIRAN KUMAR.T.L, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4
SRI S.R.HEGDE HUDLAMANE, ADVOCATE FOR R5,
R6 -SERVED)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
-3-
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 20.12.2011 IN RP No.89/2009
PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT,
MANDYA, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The applicants in R.P. No.89/2009 on the file of respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, Mandya, have come up in these writ petitions impugning the order dated 20.12.2011 passed in the said revision petition vide Annexure 'A' to the petitions as well as the order dated 04.08.2009 (Annexure 'B' to the petitions) passed by respondent No.2 - Assistant Commissioner, Mandya sub- division, Mandya, in case No.R.Misc.48/05-06.
2. Admittedly, the original applicant, namely Thammannagowda, son of Appaji Gowda, filed revision petition, which was numbered as R.P. No.58/2000 (mentioned as R.P. No.58/2003 in the writ petitions) under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') before the first respondent - Deputy -4- Commissioner, Mandya District, challenging the mutation entry i.e., M.R. No.15/86-87 effected in the name of: H.C. Nagaraju (the late husband of respondent No.5 in these petitions), son of Smt. Puttathayamma, in respect of land measuring 01 Acre 25 guntas in Sy. No.269/C and 21 guntas in Sy. No.107/1B situate in Kudarugundi village, Maddur Taluk; and Smt. Laxmamma (respondent No.6 in these petitions), who is the wife of Narayanaswamy and daughter of late Appajigowda, in respect of the land measuring 30 guntas in Sy. No.269/C1 situate in the very same village.
3. The first respondent - Deputy Commissioner by order dated 19.11.2004, directed the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner to decide the matter in accordance with law.
4. Pursuant to the said direction, the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner registered the case in No.R.Mis.48/05-06 and issued notice to the appellant - Thammannagowda as well as respondents in the said proceedings including the aforesaid Sri H.C. Nagaraju and -5- Smt. Lakshmamma. It was contended by the appellant that the lands in question are the self acquired properties of his father, late Appajigowda and khata in respect of the lands in question was changed in favour of the aforesaid persons without issuing notice to him. The Assistant Commissioner after holding enquiry, by order dated 04.08.2009, dismissed the appeal filed by Thammannagowda.
5. The said order of the Assistant Commissioner was subject matter of revision petition before the first respondent
- Deputy Commissioner. However, respondent No.1 has dismissed the revision petition on the premise that the revisional jurisdiction is not available to the said office against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners herein, who are the wife and children of Thammanne Gowda are before this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for -6- respondent Nos.1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. Perused the records. On going through the same, it is clear that the impugned order passed by the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner is erroneous in the light of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court rendered in the matter of Sri Ashok vs. Shri Pandurang and others reported in ILR 2012 Kar 4571, wherein it is held as under:
"The order made under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 by the Assistant Commissioner in an appeal preferred against the order made under sub-Section (4) or an Entry certified under sub-Section (6) of Section 129 of the Act is subject to Revision by the Deputy Commissioner under sub-Section (3) of Section 136 of the Act."
7. In that view of the matter, the order dated 20/12/2011 passed by respondent No.1 - Deputy Commissioner, Mandya District, in R.P. No.89/2009 vide Annexure 'A' to the petitions, is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh disposal in accordance with law. While doing so, respondent No.1 shall also keep in mind that there is parallel proceedings initiated by the petitioners themselves in O.S. No.204/2010 on -7- the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC., Maddur. However, the said proceedings would not come in the way of the Deputy Commissioner exercising his power as a quasi judicial authority under Section 136(3) of the Act and pass appropriate orders in R.P. No.89/2009.
8. Since the revision proceedings in R.P. No.89/2009 being quashed and the same being remanded to the first respondent - Deputy Commissioner for fresh disposal, the question of quashing the order dated 04.08.2009 passed by the second respondent - Assistant Commissioner in R. Misc. No.48/2005-06 does not arise. The correctness or otherwise of the said order will be reconsidered by the first respondent in the remanded revision petition.
9. With such clarification, these writ petitions are disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma