Smt Sarojamma vs The Dy. Commissioner on 28 November, 2012

[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Sarojamma vs The Dy. Commissioner on 28 November, 2012

Bench: Ashok.B.Hinchigeri

                            1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE

      DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2012

                        BEFORE

    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK.B.HINCHIGERI

       WRIT PETITION No.17650 OF 2012 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN

SMT.SAROJAMMA,
W/O PAPANNA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT MADARAKALLU VILLAGE,
KAIWARA HOBLI,
CHINTAMANI TALUK.                            ... PETITIONER

                (BY SRI V.VISWANATH, ADV.)

AND

1     THE DY. COMMISSIONER,
      CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT,
      CHIKKABALLAPURA.

2     THE ASST. DIRECTOR,
      LAND RECORDS & SURVEY
      SETTLEMENT, CHIKKABALLAPURA
      SUB-DIVN., CHIKKABALLAPURA.

3     THE ASST. DIRECTOR,
      LAND RECORDS & SURVEY SETTLEMENT,
      CHINTAMANI TALUK,
      CHINTAMANI.

4     THE SURVEYOR,
      OFFICE OF TALUK SURVEY,
      CHINTAMANI TALUK,
      CHINTAMANI.

5     SHRI VENKATESHAPPA,
      S/O THIMMAIAH,
      AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
      R/AT MADARAKALLU VILLAGE
      KAIWARA HOBLI,
      CHINTAMANI TALUK.                ... RESPONDENTS
                                  2




          (SRI R.B.SATYANARAYAN SINGH, HCGP FOR R1-R4
                   SRI M.THYAGARAJ, ADV. FOR R5)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE R1 DATED 28.3.12 SO ALSO THE ORDER
PASSED BY R2 BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE WP AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

                              ORDER

The petitioner has raised the challenge to the order, dated 28.3.2012 (Annexure-F) passed by the first respondent Deputy Commissioner dismissing the petitioner's appeal.

2. Sri R.B.Satyanarayana Singh, the learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 has raised a threshold bar to the maintainability of this petition. He submits that the order of the Assistant Director of Land Records ('ADLR' for short) could not have been challenged before the Deputy Commissioner. He submits that under Section 49(f) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 the order of the ADLR can be challenged only before the Joint Director of Land Records (JDLR).

3. Sri N.K.Shivaraj, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests that the liberty be reserved to the petitioner to challenge the ADLR's order before the JDLR.

4. The first respondent Deputy Commissioner ought to have rejected the appeal on the ground of maintainability only, but he has dismissed it on merits. As the impugned order is one without jurisdiction, I quash the same. The liberty is reserved to the petitioner to challenge the ADLR's order before the JDLR. The JDLR shall consider the anticipated appeal without being influenced by the Deputy Commissioner's order.

5. The liberty is reserved to the petitioner to explain the delay in filing the anticipated appeal with reference to the pendency of the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the petition before this Court.

6. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE KLY/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court