Karnataka High Court
M.D. Zameeruddin (Deceased) By L.Rs. vs The Deputy Commissioner And Ors. on 20 March, 2007
Author: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
Bench: D.V. Shylendra Kumar
ORDER D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. This writ petition relates to certain proceedings said to be pending before the Deputy Commissioner at Bidar, on an application filed by respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the present writ petition, seeking for review of the earlier order dated 30-9-2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bidar, filed in Rev. No. ATY/Cr. 2762/1970-71.
2. The earlier order dated 30-9-2003 was one passed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of his powers under Section 4 of the Hyderabad Abolition of Inams Act, 1954 (for short called 'the Act'), granting occupancy rights in favour of the applicants. It appears that in such proceedings which was against the inamdars, the present respondents 2 to 5 had also got themselves impleaded as parties on the premise that they have interest in the subject lands as purchasers from other third parties.
3. The Deputy Commissioner had nevertheless proceeded to confer occupancy rights in favour of the applicants i.e., the inamdars present writ petitioners.
4. It further, transpires that in respect of such order, the present respondents 2 to 5 and others have preferred appeal before the Kamataka Appellate Tribunal at Bangalore, which is numbered as 193 of 2000 and it is pending. It is during the pendency of this appeal, the present writ petitioners had raised certain objections for the examination of the appeal on the premise that the very appellants had also filed review petition before the Deputy Commissioner and that review petition was also pending. The Appellate Tribunal, therefore, it appeal's had kept the matter pending awaiting disposal of the review petition. While the proceedings stood thus, at this stage, it appears the present writ petitionei's raised objections to the maintenance of the review petition before the Deputy Commissioner inter alia contending that the very review proceedings are not tenable as the Deputy Commissioner is not entitled to take up the review of his earlier order, etc. Such preliminary objection having been brushed aside by the Deputy Commissioner, the present writ petition is filed questioning such order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 21-2-2006, copy of the same produced at Annexure-K seeking for quashing of the same.
5. This Court admitted the writ petition on 12-9-2006, notices had been issued and also stayed further proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner.
6. Thereafter, respondents have entered appearance. Sri Hegde, learned Counsel appears for respondents 2 to 5. Learned Government Pleader appears for first respondent. An application is filed praying for vacating the interim order granted by this Court on 12-9-2006 by respondents 2 to 5 inter alia contending that it is a 'no win' situation for these applicants as proceedings are not going on either before the Tribunal or before the Deputy Commissioner and the applicants are left high and dry without any relief as against the order dated 30-9-2003 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, granting occupancy rights in favour of the writ petitioners.
7. The matter has come up for orders on the LA. for vacating the interim order. Learned Counsel, agreed that instead of passing interim orders writ petition itself can be heard and disposed of.
8. Heard Sri Ravindra Patil, learned Counsel for Sri Hemant R. Chandangoudar, appearing for petitioners, Sri R.G. Hegde, appearing for respondents 2 to 5 and Sri Nadiga Shivanandappa, learned Government Pleader for respondent 1.
9. It is not in dispute that the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Section 4 of the Act has already passed orders on 30-9-2003. The Deputy Commissioner functions as a statutory functionary while exercising powers under Section 4 of the Act for granting occupancy rights in favour of inamdars-applicants. A statutory functionary can exercise only such powers as are conferred under the statute. While the Act confers a right of appeal to aggrieved persons as against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4 of the Act, a revisional power is also conferred under Section 28 to the High Court within whose jurisdiction the proceedings arise. A power of review is also a statutory power and no authority has an inherent power to review its order. In fact, after exercising the statutory power lying with the Deputy Commissioner under Section 4 of the Act the Deputy Commissioner becomes functus officio the moment orders are passed. If respondents 2 to 5, have now invoked the appellate jurisdiction before the Tribunal, it is open for them to pursue that remedy. But, the order dated 21-2-2006 now passed by the D.C. sanctioned in this petition indicates that the D.C. has ordered for taking up further proceedings.
10. Such review proceedings cannot be permitted to stand on an examination of the provisions of the Act. It is obvious that the Deputy Commissioner does not have review jurisdiction in respect of his orders passed under Section 4 of the Act. The proceedings before the Deputy Commissioner in file Rev. No. ATY/Cr. 2762/1970-71 etc., for reviewing the earlier order dated 30-9-2003 at the instance of respondents 2 to 5 stands quashed by issue of writ of certiorari. The Deputy Commissioner-first respondent is restrained from proceeding further in this matter. The review petition stands dismissed.
11. It is open to the respondents 2 to 5 to move the Appellate Tribunal for taking up their appeal as the impediment for taking up their appeal is cleared.
This writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute.