Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manjunath Dasappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 September, 2022
Author: R. Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.5441/2022 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN
SRI. MANJUNATH DASAPPA
S/O LATE SRI DASAPPA
AGED 53 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.364-365, 9TH MAIN
J P NAGAR 4TH PHASE
DOLLARS COLONY
BENGALURU -560 078.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SMT. BHAT MUKAMBIKA NARAYAN, ADVOCATE)
AND
1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
VIKAS SOUDHA
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDI
BENGALURU-560 001
2 . THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DIVISION
2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING
K H ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR
BENGALURU 560 027.
-2-
3 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
1ST FLOOR, K G ROAD
BENGALURU 560 009.
4 . TECHNICAL ASSISTANT AND
EX-OFFICIO JOINT DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE
BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT
4TH FLOOR, K G ROAD
BENGALURU 560 009.
5 . THE ASSISTNAT DIRECTOR
OF LAND RECORDS
VINAYAKA NAGAR,
ANEKAL TALUK
ANEKAL, BENGALURU 562 106.
6 . THE TAHSILDAR, ANEKAL
VINAYAKA NAGAR
ANEKAL TALUK, ANEKAL
BENGALURU 562 106.
7 . THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL
OFFICE OF THE TAHSILDAR
ANEKAL
VINAYAKA NAGAR,
ANEKAL 562 106.
8 . THE SURVEY COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF SSLR,
K R CIRCLE
BANGALORE 560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, AAG FOR
SRI. SESHU V., HCGP)
-3-
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE R2, REGIONAL
COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DIVISION AND DECLARE THAT
THE PROCEEDINGS IS ILLEGAL AND NON-EST IN THE EYE OF
LAW AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS ON THE FILE OF
THE R2, REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DIVISION,
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 16.09.2022 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The challenge raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is to the proceedings initiated by the respondent- State Government before the Regional Commissioner, Bangalore Division in RACR/04/2019-20.
2. Although it is not disputed that the petitioner is the owner and khatedar of 6 acres and 13 guntas of land in Sy.No.183/2 having acquired the same under the registered sale deed dated 13.10.2006, what is disputed however is the extent of "A" Kharab land attached to the main land. In the sale deed it is stated that 22 acres and 25 guntas of "A" Kharab land was sold to the petitioner, along with 6 acres and 13 guntas of cultivable land. -4-
3. In the considered opinion of this Court, since a technical objection is sought to be raised at the hands of the petitioner that a second revision petition is not maintainable, therefore, without going into the other details, what is required to be noticed is that the Deputy Commissioner had passed an order dated 17.08.2017, at Annexure-A. In terms of the said order, which is an order passed in revision petition filed at the hands of the petitioner herein, the revision petition was allowed while setting aside the order dated 19.09.2014 passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records (DDLR). The Deputy Commissioner directed the Joint Director of Land Records (JDLR) to give opportunity of hearing to all concerned, make a spot inspection, conduct survey, retain the Kharab portion of the land which was meant for usage of the general public as "B" Kharab land, classify the remaining which are cultivable accordingly, fix the revenue/tax and enter the same in the Aakarband, in accordance with law.
-5-
4. However, at the request of the petitioner herein, who had made an application to the Deputy Commissioner on 27.09.2017, the Deputy Commissioner passed a Corrigendum Order dated 03.10.2017. The Corrigendum Order dated 03.10.2017 was questioned before the Regional Commissioner in RACR/04/2019-20, by the respondent-State Government.
5. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Udaya Holla, appearing for the petitioner submits that a second revision petition is not maintainable, is the position of law settled by a catena of decisions.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Dhyan Chinnappa, submits while pointing out to the Corrigendum Order passed by the Deputy Commissioner that in the guise of correcting an error, the Deputy Commissioner has passed a completely different order contrary to what was originally ordered. Learned AAG submits that in terms of Section 58 of the Karnataka -6- Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', for short) only clerical or arithmetical mistakes in the orders of the revenue authorities arising from any accidental slip or omission is permitted to be corrected. However, since the Deputy Commissioner passed a completely different order, the same has been questioned by the State before the Regional Commissioner, invoking Section 56 of the Act. Learned AAG submits that the State is not challenging the original order passed by the Deputy Commissioner in the revision petition and on the other hand, what is questioned before the Regional Commissioner is the Corrigendum Order and therefore it cannot be said that a second revision petition is filed by the State. Learned AAG submits that in terms of Section 56 any revenue officer not inferior in rank to an Assistant Commissioner is empowered to call for and examine the record of any enquiry or proceedings of any subordinate officer under the Act for the purpose of satisfying himself -7- as to the legality and propriety of the proceedings of such officer.
7. However, during the course of these proceedings, it was noticed that an order passed under Section 56 can be modified, annulled or reversed only by the Tribunal. Section 57 reads as follows;
"57. Orders expressly made final under the Act.- Whenever in this Act it is declared that an order of a Revenue Officer shall be final, such expression shall be deemed to mean that no appeal lies from such order. The Tribunal alone shall be competent to modify, annul or reverse any such order under the provisions of section 56."
8. Having regard to the express provision contained in Section 57, it is clear that if the respondent-State was aggrieved of the Corrigendum Order dated 03.10.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, then the same could be questioned only before the Tribunal and not before the Regional Commissioner.
-8-
9. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in RACR/04/2019-20 before the Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru is hereby quashed and set aside. However, the respondent-State Government is permitted to file a petition/appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Corrigendum Order dated 03.10.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in case No:Bhoomapana/ Revision/ Application 12/2014-15, shall not be given effect to for a period of six weeks from today, to enable the respondent-State Government to seek appropriate interim orders at the hands of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal.
10.Pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly the same stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE DL