Sri K R Sudhir vs The Deputy Commissioner on 7 February, 2023
• Kunnappa vs. State of Karnataka,
2012 (1) KLJ 28;
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (1.42 seconds)Documents citing
Sri Kunnappa vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 April, 2010
Smt. Manjula vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 August, 2025
4. Learned Counsel submits that similar actions in
large numbers were noticed by this Court in the case of
Kunnappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported
in 2011 SCC Online Kar 4103 and this Court framed the
issues to be considered as a) it is an order passed by the
very authority in the third round of the exercise of power
under Section 136(3) of the Act; (b) it is an order which is
reasonably elaborate running to as many as 35 pages and
though a good number of such orders have been found
fault with by this Court and even quashed and many such
orders have been virtually conceded by the State
Government as they only deserve to be quashed, a
spirited defence by the State Government in these
petitions and the learned Special Government Advocate
who appeared on behalf of the State and other statutory
authorities to re-agitate the powers conferred on the
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:30108
WP No. 8522 of 2024
HC-KAR
Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Act,
this Court held as follows:
Sri Ramakrishnappa vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2020
9. The present enquiry initiated by second respondent
is pursuant to the Government Notification No PÉAE 807
JJ¸ïr 2014 dated 10.10.2014, wherein the State has
directed the Deputy Commissioners to hold enquiry so as
to free all the lands from encroachment or unauthorized
occupation. It appears, second respondent by exercising
power under Section 136(3) virtually has acted on
consideration of material which fell outside the scope of
provision of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act by holding an enquiry under Section 136(3). Second
respondent is only required to rectify the entries made in
the revenue records where the entries are made without
any basis for claiming mutation entries. In the present
9
case on hand, the petitioner is asserting his rights on the
basis of an order passed by the Land Grant Committee and
consequent issuance of saguvali chit. The action of the
second respondent in passing the impugned order is
squarely covered by the proposition laid down by this
Court in Kunnappa Vs State of Karnataka and Others
(2012(1) KLJ 28). This Court while examining similar
cases has held that the Deputy Commissioner while
exercising power under Section 136(3) is required to act
on relevant provisions and within the limits of the statutory
power. This Court was of the view that the authority while
exercising power under Section 136(3) cannot examine the
correctness of re-grant orders, relaxation orders or the
saguvali chit and all these matters are to be examined
independently in appropriate proceedings and not in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of
the Act.
Sri.Neelakanta Sastry vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 September, 2020
9. In view of the above, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order dated 18.11.2010 passed by
the second respondent i.e. the Special Deputy
Commissioner as per Annexure-'H' is quashed. The
-8-
matter is remanded back for fresh consideration strictly in
terms of the proposition laid down by this Court in
Kunnappa .vs. State of Karnataka [2012(1)
Kar.L.J.28] and Sunny Kulathakal .vs. State of
Karnataka and others [ 2015(3) Kar.L.J.276].
Smt Rukmaniyamma vs State Of Karnataka on 8 September, 2020
9. The present enquiry initiated by second
respondent is pursuant to the Government Notification No
PÉAE 807 JJ¸ïr 2014 dated 10.10.2014, wherein the
State has directed the Deputy Commissioners to hold
enquiry so as to free all the lands from encroachment or
unauthorized occupation. It appears, second respondent
by exercising power under Section 136(3) virtually has
acted on consideration of material which fell outside the
scope of provision of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land
Revenue Act by holding an enquiry under Section 136(3).
Second respondent is only required to rectify the entries
made in the revenue records where the entries are made
9
without any basis for claiming mutation entries. In the
present case on hand, the petitioner is asserting his rights
on the basis of an order passed by the Land Grant
Committee and consequent issuance of saguvali chit. The
action of the second respondent in passing the impugned
order is squarely covered by the proposition laid down by
this Court in Kunnappa Vs State of Karnataka and
Others (2012(1) KLJ 28). This Court while examining
similar cases has held that the Deputy Commissioner while
exercising power under Section 136(3) is required to act
on relevant provisions and within the limits of the statutory
power. This Court was of the view that the authority while
exercising power under Section 136(3) cannot examine the
correctness of re-grant orders, relaxation orders or the
saguvali chit and all these matters are to be examined
independently in appropriate proceedings and not in
exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of
the Act.
Smt. Hanumakka Deceased By Her Lr vs The State Of Karnataka on 1 October, 2020
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
vehemently argue and contend before this Court that
the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 as
per Annexure-H is against a dead person. Learned
counsel for the petitioner would further submit that
since the petitioner's mother was granted the petition
land, the respondent No.2 would lose jurisdiction
6
under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act. Learned counsel would further submit that even
if the matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2,
no purpose would be served since the petitioner is
relying on the grant order passed by the competent
authority and if there are title documents, the
respondent No.2 - Deputy Commissioner cannot
examine the correctness of the grant order by
exercising revisional jurisdiction under Section 136(3)
of the Act. To buttress his argument, he would rely
on the judgment rendered by this Court in Kunnappa
vs. State of Karnataka and Others reported in
2012 (1) Kar.L.J. 28.
Sri H V Ravikumar vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 16 November, 2012
In saying so, I am fortified by the decision of this
Court in the case of KUNNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
AND OTHERS reported in 2012(1) KLJ 28. The relevant
portions of the said decision are extracted hereinbelow:
Sri P Prathap vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 December, 2012
In this regard, it is profitable to refer
to paragraph Nos.21 and 22 of this Court's decision in the
case of KUNNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND
OTHERS reported in 2012 (1) KLJ 28:-
Smt Thimmamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2012
6. For disposing of this case, the decision of this
Court in the case of KUNNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
& ORS. reported in 2012 (1) KLJ 28 is of immense
assistance. It is held therein that the power conferred by
Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964,
is exercisable only for correcting the revenue entries. If
the land-grant has to be cancelled, it has to be done in
independent proceedings. Paragraphs 21 and 22 of the
said decision are extracted hereinbelow:
Smt S Parvathamma vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2012
In taking
this view, I am fortified by this Court's decision in the case of
KUNNAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
reported in 2012 (1) KLJ 28. Paras 21 and 22 of the said
decision are extracted hereinbelow:-