Karnataka High Court
Sri.Manjunath Dasappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2025
Author: N S Sanjay Gowda
Bench: N S Sanjay Gowda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:17179
WP No. 7812 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 7812 OF 2025 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.MANJUNATH DASAPPA
SONOF LATE DASAPPA
AGED 56 YEARS
RESIDING AT 364-365
9TH MAIN, DOLLARS COLONY, J P NAGAR
4TH PHASE, BENGALURU 560 078
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.K.NANDA KUMAR., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. RAGHURAM CADAMBI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESNETED BY ITS PRICNIPAL SECRTARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Digitally
signed by VIKAS SOUDHA
KIRAN
KUMAR R DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI
Location: BENGALURU 560 001
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
2. THE SURVEY COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF SSLR, K R CIRCLE
BANGALORE 560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KANDAYA BHAVAN,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
BANGALOR-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BYSRI.K.MANJUNATH., HCGP) -2- NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL DATED 29.01.2025 PASSED IN R.P.No.97/2022 (ANNEXURE-A) AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST, ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.03.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA CAV ORDER
1. In the year 2013, the petitioner herein approached the Deputy Director of Land Records (the DDLR) contending that the B-Kharab land in Sy.Nos.183/1 and 183/2 were already cultivated by him and the same should therefore be given to him.
2. The DDLR by his order dated 19.09.2014 rejected this claim and classified the extent of 23 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.183 as Saravu and Kallubande i.e., he classified it as B-Kharab land, over which there were communal rights involved. He thus held that the petitioner could not be granted the same.-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025
3. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed a revision to the Deputy Commissioner and on 13.10.2014, the Deputy Commissioner, after hearing the parties proceeded to pass an order in the following terms:
"ªÉÄîÌAqÀ PÀArPÉUÀ¼À°è «ªÀj¹gÀĪÀ J¯Áè CA±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß UÀt£ÉUÉ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¨sÀÆ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ C¢ü¤AiÀĪÀÄ 1964gÀ PÀ®A 56gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è zÀvÀÛªÁVgÀĪÀ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¸À°è¹gÀĪÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 13-10-2014gÀ j«d£ï CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÅgÀ¸ÀÌj¹zÉ ºÁUÀÆ 1£Éà JzÀÄgÀÄzÁgÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 19-09-2014gÀ DzÉñÀªÀ£ÀÄß gÀzÀÄÝ¥Àr¹zÉ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ D£ÉÃPÀ¯ï vÁ®ÆèPÀÄ, aUÀt ºÉÆç½, §ÄPÀ̸ÁUÀgÀ UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 183/1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 183/2 UÀ¼À §UÉÎ »vÁ¸ÀPÀÛjUÉ CªÀPÁ±À PÉÆlÄÖ, ¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁr, C¼ÀvÉ PÁAiÀÄð£Àqɹ, ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀPÁÌV «ÄøÀ°nÖgÀĪÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß '©' RgÁ¨ï£À®Æè, G½PÉ ºÀ¸À£ÁzÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁUÀįÁAiÀÄPÀÄÌ d«ÄãÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ C¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ºÁUÀÆ DPÁgÀ§Azï zÀÄgÀ¸ÀÄÛ¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ ¤AiÀĪÀiÁ£ÀĸÁgÀ PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉƼÀî®Ä ¨sÀÆzÁR¯ÉUÀ¼À dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀjUÉ DzÉò¹gÀÄvÉÛ."
4. As could be seen from the above, the Deputy Commissioner directed that notice be issued to the concerned, a spot inspection be conducted, a measurement be made and the portion which was to -4- NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025 be utilized by the public that is B-Kharab would have to be determined and the remaining cultivable area would have to be assessed for payment of land revenue.
5. It is therefore clear that the question of determination of the land which was to be utilized by the public at large and which was required to be classified as B-Kharab was left open and to be determined by the Joint Director.
6. However, after the said order was passed on 17.08.2017, the petitioner herein had made an application on 27.09.2017 contending that there were several errors in the order and they were required to be corrected. The Deputy Commissioner accepted this request and exercising his purported powers under Section 58 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act proceeded to pass a corrigendum order in the following terms:
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025 "wzÀÄÝ¥Àr DzÉñÀ D£ÉÃPÀ¯ï vÁ®ÆèPÄÀ , fUÀt ºÉÆç½, §ÄPÀ̸ÁUÀgÀ UÁæªÄÀ zÀ ¸À.£ÀA 183/1 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 183/2 RgÁ§Ä d«ÄäUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢¹zÀAvÉ F £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ ºÉÆgÀr¸À¯ÁzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 17-08-2017 gÀ DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÀÅl 5 gÀ ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ¸Á°£À 'PÀArPÉ-9' gÀ°è JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß "PÀArPÉ-22" gÀ°è JAzÀÄ wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä, DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÀÅl 5 gÀ ¥ÁågÁ 3gÀ 5, 6 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 7£Éà ¸Á°£À°ègÀĪÀ'F §UÉÎ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët G¥À«¨sÁUÀzÀ G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ CªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ £ÀA. J¯ï.J£ï.r(J)¹.Dgï 5/15-16 ¢£ÁAPÀ 20-05-2015 gÀAvÉ ¥Àæ¸Á¥À ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÆ', JAzÀÄ EgÀĪÀ ªÁPÀåUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß C°èAzÀ vÉUÉzÄÀ , ¸ÀzÀj ªÁPÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß "¥ÀÅl-6 gÀ 3£Éà ¥ÁågÁzÀ ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀzÀ°è ¸ÉÃj¸À®Ä, DzÉñÀªÀ ¥ÀÄl-7 gÀ ¥ÁågÁ-2 gÀ 2£Éà ¸Á°£À°è dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÄÀ («ZÁgÀuÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÀ¤SÉ) gÀªÀgÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ : 01-04-2015 gÀ°è JA§ÄzÀPÉÌ §zÀ¯ÁV "dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ (vÁAwæPÀ) gÀªÀgÀ ¥ÀvæÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 01-04-2015 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀܼÀ vÀ¤SÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ:27-08-2013 gÀ°è" JA§ÄzÁV wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä, DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÀÅl-7 gÀ ¥ÁågÁ-4 gÀ 6£Éà ¸Á°£À PÉÆ£É ¥ÀzÀzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ºÁUÀÆ 7£Éà ¸Á°£À ªÉÆzÀ®£Éà ¥ÀzÀzÀ ªÀÄÄ£Àß "5¹ PÁ®A£À°è ªÀiÁvÀæ"
JAzÀÄ zÁR°¸À®Ä, DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÀÄl-8 ¥ÁågÁ-2 gÀ 6£Éà ¸Á°£À°è '¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ªÀiÁr, C¼ÀvÉ PÁAiÀÄð £Àqɹ' JA§ÄzÀPÌÉ §zÀ¯ÁV, "¸ÀܼÀ ¥Àj²Ã®£É ºÁUÀÆ C¼ÀvÉ PÁAiÀÄð DVgÀĪÀAvÉ" JA§ÄzÁV vÀzÄÀ Ý¥Àr ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä, ºÁUÀÆ DzÉñÀzÀ ¥ÀÄl-8 gÀ°è£À CAwªÀÄ DzÉñÀzÀ 7 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 8£Éà ¸Á°£À°è '¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀPÁÌV «ÄøÀ°nÖgÀĪÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÄÀ ß '©' RgÁ¨ï£À®Æè, G½PÉ ºÀ¸À£ÁzÀ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁUÀįÁAiÀÄPÀÄÌ «ÄãÀÄ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ C¢üPÁjUÀ½AzÀ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ' JA§ ¥ÀzÀUÀ½UÉ §zÀ¯ÁV, "¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀPÁÌV «ÄøÀ°nÖgÀĪÀ 3 JPÀgÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß '©' RgÁ¨ï£À®Æè ºÀ¸À£ÁUÀzÉà EgÀĪÀ 15 UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß J RgÁ¨ï£À®Æè ªÀÄvÀÄÛ G½PÉ ºÀ¸À£ÁzÀ 19-10 JPÀgÉ/UÀÄAmÉ d«ÄãÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÁUÀįÁAiÀÄPÀÆÌ JAzÀÄ ¥ÀjUÀt¹ G¥À«¨sÁUÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ zÀQët G¥À«¨sÁUÀ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ -6- NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÀAzÁAiÀÄ ¤UÀ¢¥Àr¸ÀĪÀ §UÉÎ" JAzÀÄ ¸ÉÃj¹, wzÀÄÝ¥Àr ªÀiÁrPÉƼÀî®Ä DzÉò¸À¯ÁVzÉ."
7. As could be seen from the above, as against the original order which had directed an enquiry to be conducted to determine the extent of land being utilized by the public and, thereafter, classify the remaining cultivable land for the purpose of land revenue, the Deputy Commissioner, by way of his corrigendum, proceeded to state that only 3 acres of land was being utilized by the public and was required to be classified as B-Kharab and the remaining 15 guntas was to be classified as A-Kharab and the remaining extent of 19 acres 10 guntas was to be verified as to whether it was cultivable and be assessed.
8. Essentially, therefore, the Deputy Commissioner modified his earlier order on its merits and by way of a corrigendum recorded a finding that only 3 acres of land was B-Kharab, 15 guntas was A-Kharab and the -7- NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025 determination was required to be made only as to whether the remaining 19 acres 10 guntas was fit for cultivation.
9. Being aggrieved by this corrigendum, the Commissioner of Survey Settlement and Land Records approached the Regional Commissioner. However, these proceedings were challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P.No.5441/2022 before this Court and this Court allowed the writ petition and permitted the Commissioner to prefer an appeal to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (the KAT) within a period of four weeks.
10. Accordingly, the Commissioner, Survey Settlement of Land Records preferred an appeal to the KAT and the KAT on consideration of the matter came to the conclusion that the power available to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 58 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was only to correct clerical or arithmetical -8- NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025 mistakes in the order passed by him and he had no jurisdiction to modify the order on merits. The KAT accordingly allowed the revision and set aside the corrigendum order dated 03.10.2017.
11. Being aggrieved by this order of the KAT, the petitioner is before this Court.
12. Learned Senior counsel Sri.C.K.Nanda Kumar contended that the order of the KAT was incorrect, and the Deputy Commissioner did have the power to correct any errors, which were apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, the reasoning was incorrect.
13. He places reliance on a judgment of this Court rendered in Kalegowda's case1 and a judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Tandra 1 KALEGOWDA Vs. Smt. AKKAYYAMMA AND TWO OTHERS - ILR 1974 KAR 692 -9- NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025 Satyanarayana Rao's case2 to support his arguments.
14. The question that would arise for consideration in this writ petition is:
Whether the Deputy Commissioner could modify the order that he had passed on merits and record a finding on the merits of the claim, which he had not done so in the original order?
15. The Deputy Commissioner, in the corrigendum order dated 03.10.2017 has placed reliance on Section 58 of the Act to support the exercise of his powers to correct the order. Section 58 of the Act reads as follows:
"58. Amendment of orders.-
Clerical or arithmetical mistakes in orders arising therein from any accidental slip or omission may at any time be corrected by the Revenue Officer passing the order or by any of his successors in office, either on his 2 TANDRA SATYANARAYANA RAO Vs. TANDRA PAPARAO AND ORS. - 1997 SCC OnLine AP 81
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025 own motion or on the application of any of the parties concerned:
Provided that no such correction shall be made without giving a reasonable opportunity to the parties to be heard".
16. As could be seen from the above, Section 58 of the Act can be invoked only when, a clerical or arithmetical mistake has arisen in the orders passed by the Revenue Officer, by reason of an accidental slip or omission. Thus, the power to correct an order would only be in relation to a clerical or arithmetical mistake had occurred and these mistakes were either due to an accidental slip or an omission. Admittedly, in the instant case, there was no clerical or arithmetical mistake in the operative portion of the order necessitating the Deputy Commissioner to exercise his powers under Section 58 of the Act.
17. It is to be stated here that the Revenue Officer, in fact, would have suo moto power to correct a
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025 mistake. The Revenue Officer would also have this right if an application is made to correct an error by a party to the proceeding. Thus, essentially, there must be a mistake and this mistake would have to be in the nature of a clerical or an arithmetical mistake, which had occurred due to an accidental slip or an omission.
18. If a Revenue Officer has passed an order on the merits of the claim by giving particular reasons and after arriving at a definite conclusion, it can never be argued that a mistake of a clerical or an arithmetical nature had occurred due to an accidental slip or an omission. If an order passed on merits is to be modified so as to give the order a completely different connotation, the same would be wholly illegal and can never be considered as an accidental slip or an omission which has resulted in a clerical or an arithmetical mistake. Omission, in any sense of the term, would mean that is something which is
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025 neglected or left undone. Therefore, in order to bring the aspect of omission into play, there must be something which has not been done or something which is neglected to have been done.
19. In the instant case, the Deputy Commissioner after considering all the material on record had concluded that an enquiry was required to be conducted, a spot inspection was to be conducted, a measurement was to be done and, thereafter, a determination had to be made as to the extent of B-Kharab land which was utilized by the public at large, and also the remaining land which was made fit for cultivation and which required an assessment.
20. It is therefore clear that the Deputy Commissioner had taken all the aspects into consideration and had concluded that this was a question which was required to be determined on an enquiry by the JDLR. Therefore, there was no question of any
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025 omission on his part in passing of the impugned order.
21. Consequently, the Deputy Commissioner could not have exercise his powers under Section 58 of the Act to modify the order and indicate the extent of kharab as 3 acres (B-Kharab) and 15 guntas (A Kharab). The Deputy Commissioner basically tied down the hands of the JDLR in stating that he is required to ascertain whether the remaining 19 acres 10 guntas was fit for cultivation and could be assessed for land revenue.
22. This basically changed the entire complexion of the order and created a right in favour of the petitioner, whose original claim was that this extent of 19 acres 10 guntas was fit for cultivation and was to be classified as his land.
23. If the Deputy Commissioner in his original order had refused to accept this claim and had come to the
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025 conclusion that an enquiry was necessary to determine the extent of land being used by the public at large, he could not have in exercise of his powers under Section 58 of the Act recorded a finding that there was only 3 acres of B-Kharab and 15 guntas of A-Kharab. The Deputy Commissioner, basically, by the corrigendum conceded the claim of the petitioner that 19 acres 10 guntas was not B-Kharab. This could not obviously be done under Section 58 of the Act.
24. In my view, the Tribunal was therefore perfectly justified in setting aside this corrigendum order dated 03.10.2017.
25. Reliance placed on by the learned Senior counsel on the judgments rendered in Kalegowda's case and Tandra Satyanarayana's case also be of no avail.
26. In the case of Kalegowda, this Court was dealing with a situation under where the Civil Judge had tried a
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025 particular issue as to whether the petitioner therein was entitled to possession and had held the same in the affirmative, but in the order portion of the judgment rendered in the preliminary decree, the said relief had not been incorporated. In the instant case, such is not the situation and, therefore this judgment can be of no avail.
27. In the case of Tandra Satyanarayana Rao, the Andhra Pradesh High Court was also dealing with the case in which the Trial Court had passed a preliminary decree, in which the plaintiff was held to be entitled for 1/5th share in certain items and 1/6th share in certain other items and an Issue No.6 framed in the said suit, it had been found that the petitioner therein was entitled to 1/5th share in items 1 to 4 of the plaint schedule, but in the operative portion there was no mention about the share for which petitioner was held to be entitled in the said properties.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025
28. Thus, the factual situation there was also that, in the body of the judgment, a particular relief was granted, but in the operative portion, that relief was not forthcoming and, in that context, the matter could be brought within a purview of an accidental slip or an omission.
29. As observed above, the Deputy Commissioner, on consideration of the material on record had come to the conclusion that an enquiry was necessary and had not given any relief to the petitioner insofar as his original claim that he was entitled for 19 acres 10 guntas to be classified as his land fit for cultivation.
30. In that view of the matter, the said judgment would also be of no avail.
31. Consequently, I find no merit in this writ petition and this writ petition is therefore dismissed.
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:17179 WP No. 7812 of 2025
32. In view of the disposal of the petition, all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 139