MINAKEGOWDA v. NINGEGOWDA

(BY SMT.B.V.VIDYTJLATHA, ADV.,) AND: 1 2 3 NINGEGOWDA, S/O.LATE BHEEMEGOWDA. MAJOR. SIDDEGOWDA © PAPANNA, S/O.LATE BHEEMEGOWDA. MAJOR. KALEGOWDA, S/O.LATE BHEEMEGOWDA, MAJOR. RESPONDENTS NOS. 1-3 ARE ALL R/O. KARKAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK. 4 5 6 7 -2- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANI)YA DIS PRIC F MANDYA. REVENUE INSPECTOR, C.A. II CIRCLE MADDUR TALUK MADDUR. TAHASILDAR, MADDUR TALUK, MADDUR, VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT. KARKAHALLI. C.A.KERE HOBLI. MADDUR TALUK. . RESPONDENTS . (BY SRI.JAGADEESH MUNDARAGI, AGA FOR R4 TO R7) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.3.2011 IN R.P.NO.95/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA 4Th RESPONDENT AT QUASH M.R.NO.20/85-86 QUASH M.R.NO.27/98-99 AT ANNEXURE-K AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS 4 TO 6 TO RESTORE THE KATHA IN THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS AS ACCEPTED VIDE M.R.NO.18/76-77 AT ANNEXURE B. PASSED BY ANNEXURE-S, ANNEXURE-F, THE AT THESE WRIT PETITIONS FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY. THE COURT PASSED ThE FOLLOWING: COMING ON ORDER Petitioners have called in question order passed by respondent No.4 in Revision Petition No.95/2004 dated

28.3.201 1 Annexure-S whereunder Revision Petition -3- filed by petitioners herein questioning MR No.20/85-86 dated 14.5.1985 and MR No.27/98-99 dated 23.2.1999 came to be dismissed on the ground that there is delay of 20 years in invoking revisional jurisdiction and on the ground that petitioner is having alternative remedy available to petitioners before Civil Court.

Heard Smt.B.V. Vidhyulatha, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Jagadeesh Mundaragi, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for R4 to R7.

Learned counsel for petitioners has filed a memo seeking permission of the court to withdraw the Revision Petition filed before 4th respondent - Deputy Commissioner in RP No.95/2004 with liberty to file an appeal under section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 1964 and for a direction to said appellate authority to dispose of the appeal on merits without being influenced by impugned order. Said memo is placed on record. Petitioners being aggrieved by order of revenue entries made in the year 1985 and 1999 invoked revisional jurisdiction of 4t11 respondent as per section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 without exhausting alternative and efficacious remedy available under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 namely by filing an appeal, if at all petitioners were aggrieved by such mutation entries. Even otherwise, revision was not maintainable before 4t11 respondent as it was barred by limitation. As such, 4th respondent has rightly rejected the Revision Petition. However, taking into consideration the memo filed by learned Counsel appearing for petitioners seeking permission of court to withdraw the revision petition to enable her to file an Appeal against order dated 14.5.1985 and

23.2. 1999 requires to be accepted since petitioners without exhausting alternative and efficacious remedy of appeal. had approached 4th respondent by invoking revisional jurisdiction. Notice to respondents 1 to 4 is issued and same is disposed with since order adverse to their interest is being passed in this Writ Petition. -5-

Learned Government Advocate appearing for respondents 4 to 7 would submit that Issue regarding maintainability of the appeal including the aspect of delay be kept open to be considered by the Appellate Authority in the event of memo filed by petitioner’s counsel being accepted, since the order questioned before Deputy Commissioner was of the year 1985 and

1999. Said submission of the learned Government Advocate deserves to be accepted. Admittedly, petitioners have not filed an appeal against order of Thasildar and in view of the memo ified seeldng permission to withdrew revision petition and pennisslon to ifie appeal prayer of the petitioners deserves to be accepted. If petitioners are permitted to withdraw the revision petition, It would necessarily be without prejudice to the rights of respondents 1 to 3. In that view of the matter, petitioners are permitted to withdraw 1W No.95/2004 filed before 4th respondent which would be without prejudice to the contentions of respondents 1 to 3 herein. In that view of the matter, petitioners are -6- permitted to withdraw RP No.95/2004 and they are at liberty to challenge the order dated 14.5.1985 and

23.2. 1999 if so advised before the appellate authority. The appellate authority would be entitled to consider the aspect of maintainability of appeal as well as the question of delay while examining the delay applications filed by petitioners herein if any and permission granted by this Court to petitioners to withdraw revision petition No.95/2004 shall not be considered by the appellate authority as having been issued with a direction to consider the appeal on merits without considering the issue regarding delay. Same is kept open.

In the event of such an appeal is filed by petitioner, appellate authority shall consider the cause shown for the delay and pass orders thereon, being uninfluenced of any observation made by 4t[1 respondent in the order dated 23.8.2011 and dispose of applications for delay and thereafter dispose of the appeal on merits if delay is condoned in accordance with law. c -7- With this observation, Writ Petitions are disposed of. Learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of three weeks from today. Sd/ IUDGE PL