Karnataka High Court
H.K. Nagesh S/O Krishnegonda vs The Deputy Director Of Land Records ... on 16 December, 2006
Equivalent citations: ILR2007KAR528
Author: K.L. Manjunath
Bench: K.L. Manjunath
ORDER K.L. Manjunath, J.
1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Government Advocate for 1st and 2nd respondents and Mr. S.V. Prakash, for 3rd respondent.
2. According to the petitioner, he has purchased 3 acres 121/2 guntas in Sy. No. 3 of Ramapura village, Nidige Hobli, Shimoga Taluk from one Sannegowda under registered sale deed dated 23rd January 1981. Thereafter, he filed an application before the 2nd respondent to survey the land purchased by him end fix the boundaries. Accordingly, the proceedings were initiated. After measuring the property by issuing notice to all the neighbors, the boundaries were fixed by the Asst, Director of Land Records ('ADLR' for short) . Thereafter, the 3rd respondent filed a revision Under Section. 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act ('Act' for short) before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Shimoga, who has allowed the revision, even though the same was barred by limitation and get aside the order passed by the ADLR in fixing the boundaries of the land of the petitioner. This order is called in question in this writ petition.
3. According to the learned Counsel for this petitioner, Under Section. 56 of the Act, the 1st respondent is not empowered to entertain a revision beyond 4 months. He further contends that against the order of ADLR, the appeal is provided to the joint Director of survey settlement and Land Records. Therefore, the revisional powers could not have been exercised by the 1st respondent. On these two grounds, he request this Court to set aside the order passed by the 1st respondent and to confirm the boundaries fixed by the 2nd respondent.
4. Per contra, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that Under Section. 56 of the Act, the revisional powers can be exercised only if a revision petition is filed by an authority within 4 months and suo motu the revisional powers can also be exercised by the authorities within three years from the date of passing of the order. According to him, the 3rd respondent was not served with any notice before conducting the survey. The revision petition filed by the 3rd respondent was well within 4 months from the date of knowledge, since she is this permanent resident of Mumbai. According to him, if a revision is filed within 4 months from the date of knowledge, the same has to be construed as well in time.
5. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, under the provisions of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, Section 5 of the Limitation Act can be pressed into service only if the first and second appeal are filled under Sections 49 and 50 of the Act. Such a provision is not made to exercise power of revision. Therefore, he contends that the date of knowledge is not important, but the date of order has to be calculated, while reckoning the period of 4 months to entertain the revision.
6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the following points would emerge for consideration in this writ petition:
1) Whether the revision petition entertained by the 1st respondent was well in time?
2) Whether the 1st respondent was entitled to exercise revisional powers against the order passed by the Assistant Director of Land Records, when an appeal lies to the Joint Director of Land Records?
7. It is not in dispute that the revisional powers can be exercised by an authority if a petition is filled within 4 month from the date of order. It is also true that Under Section. 56 of the Act, there is no provision to invoke Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
8. in this background this Court has to examine whether the date of knowledge of the order to the 3rd respondent can be considered for the purpose of reckoning thee period of limitation prescribed Under Section. 56 of the Act. If an application is filed Under Section. 56 of the Act to review the order, such power can be exercised, if the same is filed within 4 months from the date of order. But in the instant case, before passing the order by the ADLR, no notice was served on the 3rd respondent, who is residing in Mumbai. In such circumstances, if an order is passed behind her back without issuing any notices to her, her right cannot be taken away only on the ground that such a revision petition is not filed within 4 months from the date of the order. Such a provision of law has to be understood that the period of 4 months has to be reckoned from the date of knowledge. In para 7 of the revision, the 3rd respondent has categorically stated that she came to know of the order only in the month of May 2002 and she was not aware of the order passed on 25.12.2001 by the ADLR, since she was not served with any notice. If notice is not served and an order be passed behind the back of the 3rd respondent, two courses are open to the 3rd respondent under the Act; is to file an appeal before the JDLR by filing an Application to condone the delay and 11) to invoke revisional powers Under Section. 56 of the Act. Since the 3rd respondent has filed a revision mainly contending that the order has been passed by the ADLR without issuing notice to her and if such a revision is entertained by the Deputy Director of Land Records by holding that the revision filed by the 3rd respondent was well in time, considering the date of her knowledge, the 1st respondent has not committed any error in entertaining the revision calculating the period of limitation from the date of the knowledge. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that while calculating the limitation for the purpose of filing the revision has to be reckoned not only from the date of the order, but also from the date of the knowledge, if such orders are passed without issuing any notice. Accordingly, point No. 1 is answered.
9. In regard to second point, it is the case of the petitioner that when an appeal is provided to Joint Director Under Section 49 of the Act, the revisional powers cannot be exercised by an officer below the rank of Joint Director of Land Records. According to him, when the appeal is provided to the Joint Director of Land Records, the revisional powers can be exercised by the Joint Director of Land Records or Above the rank of the Joint Director of Land Records and not by the Deputy Director. In the normal course, the arguments of the learned Counsel of the petitioner appears to be very sound. In Karnataka Revenue survey Manual paragraph 3.05 provides statutory power of Deputy Director of Land Records, which reeds as follows:
3.05 Statutory Power: The Statutory Powers of a Deputy Director of Land Records enable him not, only to undertake reviews Under Section. 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 but also to approve Kammi Jasti Patrikas and order correction of Clerical errors under the provisions of Rule 36 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules 1966.
When there is a specific provision under the Karnataka Revenue survey Manual authorising the Deputy Director of Land Records to entertain a review Under Section 56 of the Act, this Court is of the opinion that the Deputy Director is entitled to entertain a revision petition Under Section 56 of the Act. Therefore, the second point is also answered against the petitioner.
10. In the result, the writ petition is rejected.