Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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.