IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 03RD DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.S.PATIL W.P.NO.52305/2016 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI.MUNITHIRUMALAPPA S/O.LATE DODDAMUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT YARRAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE DODDAGUBBI POST BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560077.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.R.SRINIVASA GOWDA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVANA BENGALURU-560 009.
2. THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K.R.PURA BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 036 3. SRI.MUNINANJAPPA S/O.LATE MUNISHAMANNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/O. YARRAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE DODDAGUBBI POST BIDARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU EAST TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT-560 077.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI.K.VENKATA REDDY, ADV FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 16-06-2016 PASSED BY THE ASS.T COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION R-1 IN .R.A.(BD) 11/2015-16 AT ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R In this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging the order dated 16-06-2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore North Sub-Division. By the said order, which is produced at Annexure-F, the Assistant Commissioner has revoked his earlier order dated 10-05-2016 passed in R.A. (BE) 11/2015-16 and ordered for fresh consideration of the said appeal by exercising his power under Sections 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (‘the Act’ for brevity).
2. It is the main contention of the petitioner that, having passed the final order on 10-05-2016 thereby allowing the appeal filed by the present petitioner under Section 136(2) of the Act, the Assistant Commissioner had become functus-Officio and had no power or jurisdiction to again take up the matter for consideration let alone review the same by passing the impugned order. In support of his contention, that the Assistant Commissioner does not have such power or jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in SRI.N.CHANDRA REDDY v/s THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE BANGALORE AND OTHERS reported in 2016(4) KCCR 2860.
3. Learned counsel for the third respondent submits that the Tahasildar noticed and unearthed fraud committed by the petitioner in tampering with the revenue records and submitted a report in this regard to the Assistant Commissioner on 23-05-2016; the Assistant Commissioner has rightly exercised his inherent powers and in order to do justice he has revoked the earlier order passed by him. It is contended by the learned AGA that petitioner has been opportunity to appear before the Assistant Commissioner and participate in the proceedings therefore, no serious prejudice has been caused to him.
4. Upon hearing the learned counsel for all the parties, it is clear from the judgment of this Court in SRI.N.CHANDRA REDDY case (cited supra) by referring to various judgments of this Court as well as the Apex Court that inherent powers conferred on the Revenue Authority does not include the power of review, so as to review the final order passed by him on merits. A perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the Assistant Commissioner has reviewed his earlier order on the basis of a report submitted by the Tahasildar and has come to a conclusion that certain manipulations had been resorted to by the petitioner in the revenue records and therefore, it was a case of fraud committed by the petitioner and hence the order passed by him was required to be reviewed and recalled.
5. It is relevant to notice here that the 3rd respondent who had suffered an order from the Assistant Commissioner had indeed filed a Revision Petition under Section 136(3) of the Act in R.P.No.94/2016-17. After the Assistant Commissioner revoked his earlier order by exercising power of review, the 3rd respondent has withdrawn the said revision petition by filing a memo before the Deputy Commissioner stating that the matter had been settled.
6. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that, but for the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner revoking his earlier order, the petitioner would have prosecuted the said revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner, whereas the counsel for the petitioner submits that the revision petition was withdrawn by the 3rd respondent clearly stating that the matter had been settled and that he would not precipitate the matter any more.
7. I do not wish to enter into this controversy because the challenge before this Court is limited to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner exercising his power of review. Now that it is held that the Assistant Commissioner has no such power of review, the impugned order passed by him cannot be sustained, particularly in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the judgment referred to above.
8. Hence, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order at Annexure-F is set aside.
It is open for the third Respondent to work out his remedy in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE mpk/-*