Karnataka High Court · 2012
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 06 Oct 2012
- Bench
- ANAND BYRAREDDY
Outcome
Disposed of
authority, the present petitions are disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Land Revenue Act, 1964 s. 136(3)
- Village Office Abolition Act, 1961 s. 3
Judgment
(BY SRI P H VIRUPAKSHAIAH ADVOCATE ) AND:
DYAMAPPA S/O KARIYAPPA, BELONGS TO KURUBA COMMUNITY, AGRICULTURIST, R/AT KOKKANURU VILLAGE, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-561012
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-561011
THE TAHSILDAR HARIHARA TALUK, HARIHARA-561012
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, DAVANAGERE-561011 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD,HCGP) ***** THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 6.10.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND QUASH 5 THE ANNX-E DATED 6.10.12 ISSUED BY R4 HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL AGAINST LAW WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AND ARBITRARY THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- ORDER Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners claim that they are erstwhile holders of Village Office of Thoti Inam of Kokkanuru village, Harihara taluk, Davanagere, measuring 18 acres 23 guntas in land bearing survey no. 36 which was attached to the Village Office and that they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. When the first respondent sought to interfere with their possession and when he was questioned, it was learnt the revenue entries had been made in favour of the said respondent in the relevant records. It is then that the petitioners woke up to the mischief and sought for a copy of the order under which the second respondent is said to have passed an order in favour of the first respondent to delete the names of the petitioners in the relevant records and introduce the name of the first respondent, to which the second respondent had issued an endorsement to 6 state that there was no order passed by his office in this regard in favour of the first respondent. Since the first respondent sought to assert his claim over the land on the basis of such a non-existent order, the petitioners had approached the Deputy Commissioner, the fourth respondent, by filing an appeal, though incorrectly indicated as being under Section 136(3) of the Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner in turn having issued an endorsement to state that if the petitioners were aggrieved by any order passed under Section 3 of the Village Office Abolition Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the 'KVOA Act’ for brevity), the petitioners remedy is to file an appeal before the District Judge. It is aggrieved by the same that the petitioners are before this Court.
Operative part
3. From a reading of Section 3 of the KVOA Act, it is clear that the power under Section 3 to decide certain questions as regards any land that was granted or in regard to any person who is the holder of a Village Office or whether was an unauthorised holder or an authorised holder is conferred on the Deputy Commissioner. In the instant case, the petitioners having approached the Assistant Commissioner would indicate 7 that such power was delegated on the said authority and it is for the reason that the petitioners applications had been decided by the said office. The petitioners if aggrieved by any order passed by the said authority would necessarily have to take recourse to sub-section (2) of Section 3 which provides for an appeal to the District Judge. The petitioners having filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner having indicated the correct position of law cannot be faulted. Therefore, without prejudice to the petitioners right to file an appeal before the appropriate authority, the present petitions are disposed of. SD/- JUDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: authority, the present petitions are disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 226, 227; Land Revenue Act, 1964 — s. 136(3); Village Office Abolition Act, 1961 — s. 3.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Karnataka High Court, on 06 Oct 2012. The bench was ANAND BYRAREDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.