ADVOCATE v. BANGALORE SOUTH

SRI KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O SUBBAIAH R/AT KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560062 (BY SRI.ZULFIKIR KUMAR SHAFI, M/s.SOUTHERN LAW ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATES) ADVOCATE, ...PETITIONER AND : 1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-01 2 2 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT K.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-09 3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION BANGALORE-09 4 THE THASILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE -09 5 SRI. K. J. SRINIVASACHAR @ K. JAI SRINIVASACHAR S/O KONDACHARI MAJOR R/AT KAGGALIPURA VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-62 ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.C.M.NAGABUSHAN & MS.M SHEELA, ADVOCATES FOR R-5, SRI.R.B.SATHYANARAYANA, HCGP FOR R-1 TO 4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 3.5.2012 AT ANNEXURE-G PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND TO GRANT SUCH OTHER SUITABLE RELIEF. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY 3 HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

O R D E R Petitioner has called in question order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District in Revision Petition No.325/2010- 11 whereunder Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power under section 136(3) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 has allowed the Revision petition by setting aside the order passed by third respondent in R.A.(S)106/2006-07 dated 23.07.2010 Annexure-F.

2. Heard Sri. Zulfikir Kumar Shafi, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.C.M.Nagabhushan, learned counsel appearing for fifth respondent caveator and Sri.R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4, who has accepted notice on behalf of these respondents.

3. Though Sri. Zulfikir, learned counsel appearing for petitioner has made an attempt to assail the impugned order in the writ petition on merits this court is of the considered view that revision petition 4 filed by fifth respondent assailing the order of third respondent dated

23.07.2010 Annexure-F before second respondent itself was not maintainable and on the said short ground itself petition deserves to be allowed. Infact a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Mallegowda Vs Channaveeregowda and others reported in ILR 2011 Karnataka 4225 has held that Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Land Revenue Act, 1964 cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction and examine the correctness of an order passed by Assistant Commissioner who in exercise of power under sub-section (2) of section 136 as an appellate authority would have examined the order of Tahsildar. This court following judgment of Mallegowda's case has held that revision petition entertained by a Deputy Commissioner against the order of Assistant Commissioner is not maintainable. The dicta laid down in Mallegowda's case is squarely applicable to the facts on hand in as much as fifth respondent herein had challenged the mutation entry made in favour of petitioner by filing an appeal before Assistant Commissioner in R.A.(S) 106/2006-07 third 5 respondent and by order dated 23.07.2010 Annexure-F third respondent had dismissed the appeal against which revision petition was filed by fifth respondent and same has been allowed. Since the very revision petition filed by fifth respondent before second respondent was not maintainable for the reasons aforesaid impugned order dated 03.05.2012 Annexure-G cannot be sustained. However it is also required to observed that fifth respondent herein would be at liberty to question the order passed by Assistant Commissioner in appropriate forum in accordance with law. Hence, I pass following: ORDER

Order dated 03.05.2012 passed by second respondent in R.P.325/2010-11 Annexure-G is hereby quashed.

Fifth respondent is at liberty to challenge the order passed by third respondent in R.A.(S) 106/2006-07 dated 23.07.2010 Annexure-F in appropriate forum and in accordance with law.

No order as to costs. 6 Ordered accordingly. Sri.R.B.Sathyanarayana Singh, learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks from today. Sd/- JUDGE SBN