IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.56020/2016 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI A. PARAMASHIVAIAH, S/O LATE SRI Y. ADVIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKAVADAGERI VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI G.B. NANDISH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI R. B. SADASIVAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M. S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT PODIUM BLOCK, VISHWESHWARAIAH TOWER, BENGALURU 560001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DODDABALLAPURA SUB-DIVISION, DODDABALLAPURA-572801.
4. THE TAHSILDAR, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, DODDABALLAPURA-572801.
5. SMT. KATYAYINI, W/O SRI HOSALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O CHIKKAVADAGERE VILLAGE, MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK-572801. BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-4) …… THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.6.2012 PASSED BY THE R-2 HEREIN IN RP NO.53/2007-08 VIDE ANNEXURE-E.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner filed the present writ petition against the order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, as per Annexure-E, dismissing the Revision Petition No.53/2007-08 as not maintainable, in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.11953/2011 holding that the revision is not maintainable.
2. Without adverting to various contentions raised by learned counsel for both the parties, it is suffice to direct the Deputy Commissioner to proceed with the Revision Petition and pass fresh orders in accordance with law, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sri Ashok vs. Shri Pandurang and others reported in ILR 2012 KAR 4571, holding that against any order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under the provisions of Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, revision lies before the Deputy Commissioner who is the authority to decide the case on merits. Paragraph 9 of the said judgment reads as under:
In the case of B.P.Ashok vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Office of the D.C. Chickmagalur and others reported in (2001)1 KCCR SN 34, Justice K. Sreedhar Rao, has held “that the revisional jurisdiction is purely a discretionary, and irrespective of the nature and source of information, the Deputy Commissioner can take cognizance of such information and can find out the legality of the proceedings or order and it would not debar any person who is a party to the proceedings as interested in the dispute to bring to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner about the legality.”
3. In view of the Full Bench decision of this Court stated supra, now, the Deputy Commissioner is the authority to consider the revision petition filed under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, on merits.
4. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 25.06.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, as per Annexure-E, dismissing the Revision Petition No.53/2007-08 as not maintainable, is quashed. The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for re-consideration on merits, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE kcm