IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.9573 OF 2011(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI U.D.NAGARAJ S/O DEVIRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, UDEWARA POST, BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKLESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.BABU RAO, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN, HASSAN DISTRICT.
2. SRI A.G.GIDDEGOWDA S/O GIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, 3. H.D.ANNEGOWDA S/O DASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 4. KEMPEGOWDA S/O HIREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS 5. SRI PUTTEGOWDA S/O HANUMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS 6. SRI H.G.LOKESH S/O GIDDEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESPONDENTS NO.2 TO 6 ALL ARE R/O HOSSAKOPPAL, BELAGODU HOBLI, SAKLESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI H.VENKATESH DODDERI, AGA FOR R1 SRI NARENDRA GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R6) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ORDER OR DIRECTION BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 7.12.2010 ISSUED BY THE R1 IN NO.REVISION PETITION NO.4A/2006-2007 AS PER ANNEXURE-G IN SO FAR AS 3 ACRES 5 GUNTAS OF LAND IN SY.NO.146, BALAGODU VILLAGE.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The case of the petitioner is that he was granted the land to an extent of 3 acres 5 guntas in survey No.146 of Balegodu village, Belagodu Hobli, Sakaleshpur Taluk in the year 1981-82. After obtaining permission from the Tahsildar, he sold 1 acre 20 guntas to one Balakrishna Rai on 3-11-2004. The remaining land was retained by him. Thereafter it appears that some of the villagers approached the Tahsildar to cancel the grant. Aggrieved by the order of the Tahsildar transferring the katha in favour of the purchasers, the villagers filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner by the order vide Annexure-F allowed the same and directed the Tahsildar to initiate proceedings under Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. By the impugned order the same was rejected. Hence, the present petition.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in ordering to enter the name of the Government in the grant. That was not the subject matter of the revision.
3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents disputes the same. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. The Assistant Commissioner by the order at Annexure-F dated 5-8-2006 directed the Tahsildar to take action under Section 25 of the Rules. Therefore it would appear that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order herein. Hence, I’am of the view that the order of the Deputy Commissioner is with excessive jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. There is no error in the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. Obviously that order is accepted by the petitioner then there is no prayer to quash it.
4. Under these circumstances, the petition is allowed. The order passed by the 1st respondent Deputy Commissioner dated 7-12-2010 vide Annexure-G is quashed. In terms of the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 15-6-2006 vide Annexure-F, the Tahsildar to do the needful in terms of the order of the Assistant Commissioner.
SD/- JUDGE Rsk/-