IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.22040 OF 2009(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
G.P.MALLARAJE URS S/O PUTTAMADE URS, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT GAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, ARAKERE HOBLI, SREERANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI V.N.MADHAVA REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND:
SMT.KALAMMA DEAD BY HER LRS 1. CHIKKAVEERACHARI S/O LATE KALAMMA, DEAD BY HIS LRs 1(a) JAYAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKAVEERACHARI RESPONDENTS AGE:MAJOR 1(a) & 1(b) DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 1(b) CHANDRAMMA 16.2.2017 D/O LATE CHIKKAVEERACHARI AGE:MAJOR 1(c) MANJULAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKAVEERACHARI, AGE:MAJOR 1(d) DINESH S/O LATE CHIKKAVEERACHARI, AGE:MAJOR ALL ARE RESIDING AT GAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, ARAKERE HOBLI, SREERANGAPATNA TALUK.
2. NAGARAJACHARI S/O LATE KALAMMA, MAJOR.
3. ESHWARACHARI S/O KALAMMA, AGE:MAJOR, ALL ARE R/AT GAMANAHALLI VILLAGE, ARAKERE HOBLI, SREERANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
4. SMT.RATHANAMMA D/O LATE KALAMMA AND DELETED VIDE ORDER W/O LATE M.C.NAGARAJU, DATED 16.2.2017 MAJOR, R/O GOLLARAPALYA, BENGALURU CITY.
5. SMT.GAYATHRI D/O LATE KALAMMA AND W/O RAJANNA, MAJOR, R/AT MANIGERE VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
6. SMT.VIJAYA D/O LATE KALAMMA, W/O SIDDAPPAJI, MAJOR, R/AT MUTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, C.A.KERE HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
7. THE TAHASILDAR SREERANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT.
8. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.J.MAHESH, ADVOCATE FOR M/S.EESH & EESH, ADVOCATES FOR R3 SMT.PRAMODHINI KISHAN, HCGP FOR R7 & R8 R2, 5, 6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED R1(c) AND (d) ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED VIDE ORDER DATED 16.2.2017 R1,(a & b) AND R4 ARE DELETED) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANDYA DISTRICT IN R.P.NO.23/2003 DATED 29.6.2009 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 29.06.2009, vide Annexure-A, passed by the Deputy Commissioner.
2. The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahsildhar, the first respondent filed a revision directly to the Deputy Commissioner. Hence, he pleads that the Deputy Commissioner without authority has passed the impugned order. That an appeal is maintainable only before the Assistant Commissioner.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends that notwithstanding jurisdiction, the Deputy Commissioner has powers to initiate suo-moto proceedings.
4. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that an appropriate relief is called for.
5. Even though the Deputy Commissioner has suo-moto powers, what is exercised in the impugned order was not a suo-moto power, but revision under Section– 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner could not pass any orders against the order of the Tahsildhar. The appeal is maintainable only before the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the order dated 29.06.2009, vide Annexure-A passed by the Deputy Commissioner is set-aside.
6. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order of the Tahsildar before the Assistant Commissioner. If such an appeal is filed within 12 weeks from the date of receipt of the order, the Assistant Commissioner shall consider the same without reference to the delay.
SD/- JUDGE JJ