Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Respondent No.2 had approached the ADLR on 30.11.2000 to carry out a phodi in terms of the compromise decree in OS No.120/1973. The phodi having been carried out however the extent of land came to be reduced hence respondent No.2 had challenged the same before the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in case No.541/2000, since the area had been reduced. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal set aside the phodi order dated 30.11.2000 reserved liberty to the respondent No.2 to approach an appropriate competent forum.

8. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 29.6.2001 had observed that the Deputy Director of Land Records (DDLR) would not be the revisional authority competent to hear a challenge to an order passed by the ADLR and it was further observed that the competent authority would be the Joint Director of Land Records (JDLR) and in furtherance of the same the order passed by the DDLR was set aside on the files directed to be returned to the respondent No.2 who was the appellant therein to approach the competent authority.

10. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed all the revision petitions on the ground that Modin Ali had been registered as an occupant for 5 acres 36 guntas of land in Sy. No.133. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioners are before this Court.

11. Sri.V.K. Naik., learned counsel for the petitioner would submits that;

- 11 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:4933 11.1. The respondent No.2 could never have approached the ADLR for carrying out of phodi for the land in Sy.No.149 on the basis of the decree in OS No.120/1973 since subsequent thereto, the Karnataka Certain Inams Abolition Act, 1977 (for short "Act of 1977") was enacted which came into force on 5.6.1978. The submission is that once the Act came into force all actions taken prior to the said Act coming into force were set at naught and decree could not be relied upon by anyone. 11.2. In this regard he relies on sub-section 1 of section 4 of Act 1977, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

- 19 -

NC: 2023:KHC-K:4933 which is sought to be enforced before the ADLR.

13.2. This partition deed would also have to be looked into while carrying out the necessary podi and durasti and entries of the name of the petitioner, respondents No.1 and 2 and subsequently, the name of respondent No.3 who is a purchaser of a portion of the property from respondent No.1.