Holalppa Yallappa Makarabbi vs The Assistant Commissioner
2022 Latest Caselaw 2640 Kant

                                  :1:


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                  DHARWAD BENCH
     DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022
                               BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
     WRIT PETITION NO.66524/2012 (KLR-RR/SUR)

BETWEEN:
1.     Holalappa Yallappa Makarabbi,
       S/o. Late Shri Yallappa Makarabbi,
       Age 44 years, Occ: Agril.,
       R/o.: Dasanahalli Village,
       Tq.: Huvinahadagali, Dist.: Ballari.
2.     Smt. Pushpa W/o. Shri Nagappa,
       (D/o. Late Shri Yallappa Makarabbi)
       Age 48 years, Occ: Housewife,
       R/o.: Dasanahalli Village,
       Tq.: Huvinahadagali, Dist.: Ballari.
3.     Chandrappa Yallappa Makarabbi,
       S/o. Late Shri Yallappa Makarabbi,
       Age 35 years, Occ: Agril.,
       R/o.: Dasanahalli Village,
       Tq.: Huvinahadagali, Dist.: Ballari.
                                                      ... Petitioners
(By Shri Veeresh R.Budihal, Advocate-absent)

AND:
1.     The Assistant Commissioner,
       Office of the Asst. Commissioner, Hosapete.
2.     The Deputy Tahsildar, Hadagali,
       Tq.: Huvinahadagali, Dist.: Ballari.
3.     Shri Budhi Halappa S/o. Ningappa,
       Since deceased rep. by his L.Rs.
3A.    Smt. Parvatevva W/o. Budhi Halappa,
       Age major, Occ: Not known to the petitioner,
       R/o.: Dasanahalli Village,
       Tq.: Huvinahadagali, Dist.: Ballari,
       Since deceased by her L.Rs. as 3B to 3H.
                                 :2:

3B.   Shri Hanumantappa S/o. Budhi Halappa,
      Age major, Occ: Not known to the petitioner,
      R/o.: Dasanahalli Village,
      Tq.: Huvinahadagali, Dist.: Ballari.
3C.   Shri Basavaraj S/o. Budhi Halappa,
      Age major, Occ: Not known to the petitioner,
      R/o.: Dasanahalli Village,
      Tq.: Huvinahadagali, Dist.: Ballari.
3D.   Shri Ningappa S/o. Budhi Halappa,
      Age major, Occ: Not known to the petitioner,
      R/o.: Dasanahalli Village,
      Tq.: Huvinahadagali, Dist.: Ballari.
3E.   Shri Prakash S/o. Budhi Halappa,
      Age major, Occ: Not known to the petitioner,
      R/o.: Dasanahalli Village,
      Tq.: Huvinahadagali, Dist.: Ballari.
3F.   Smt. Sharadavva W/o. Shri Lekkappa,
      Age major, Occ: Not known to the petitioner,
      R/o.: Dasanahalli Village,
      Tq.: Huvinahadagali, Dist.: Ballari.
3G.   Smt. Saroja W/o. Shri Shankarappa,
      Age major, Occ: Not known to the petitioner,
      R/o.: Dasanahalli Village,
      Tq.: Huvinahadagali, Dist.: Ballari.
3H.   Smt. Sheelavva W/o. Mallappa,
      Age major, Occ: Not known to the petitioner,
      R/o.: Dasanahalli Village,
      Tq.: Huvinahadagali, Dist.: Ballari,
                                                      ... Respondents
(By Smt. Girija S.Hiremath, HCGP for R1 & R2;
 Smt. Pallavi Pachhapure for Shri Shrinand A.Pachhapure,
      Advocate for R3B to R3H;
 R3B to R3H are treated as L.Rs. of R3A)

       This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India, praying to quash the notice dated 03.08.2012
bearing reference no.KAM.Pahani:Appeal:180:11-12, styled as notice
for rehearing addressed by the respondent No.1 to the petitioners vide
Annexure-C and etc.

       This petition coming on for orders regarding hearing on
interlocutory application, this day, the Court made the following:
                               :3:


                            ORDER

Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice for respondent

Nos.1 and 2.

2. The petitioner has challenged a notice issued by

respondent No.1, dated 03.08.2012 (Annexure-C) to review his

earlier order dated 01.08.2012, passed under Section 136(2) of

the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short "the Act,

1964").

3. The lands in question are Sy.Nos.261, 262, 265A of

Hyarada Village, which were owned and possessed by Yallappa

Marakarabbi, who died in the year 1978-79. The petitioners

herein claims to be the legal heirs of the said Yallappa

Markarabbi. The petitioners approached the respondent No.2 to

get their names entered in the revenue records. They were

shocked to know that the name of the respondent No.3 and his

legal heirs were entered in the revenue records. Thereafter, they

moved an application before the respondent No.2 challenging the

mutation entry No.57/1979-80, dated 12.08.1979. The

respondent No.2 rejected the same in terms of an endorsement

dated 13.10.2011. Aggrieved by the aforesaid endorsement, the

petitioners filed an appeal before the respondent No.1. The

respondent No.1 after considering the records allowed the appeal

in terms of the order dated 01.08.2012 and set aside the

mutation in favour of the respondent No.3. The respondent No.3

without challenging the aforesaid order, again approached the

respondent No.1 to review his earlier order dated 01.08.2012.

The respondent No.1 issued a notice to the respondents to

rehear the appeal on 08.08.2012.

4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice, the present

writ petition is filed on the ground that the respondent No.1 had

become functus officio after passing the order dated 01.08.2012

and therefore could not have entertained any request for review

of the said order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that

the power of review cannot be exercised unless sufficient

provision is made in the statute enabling the authorities to

exercise the power of review and in the present case, the

respondent No.1 did not have power to review his own order. He

relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in the case of Sri N.Chandra Reddy V. The state of Karnataka th and others in W.P.No.20882/2016, disposed off on 15 June

2016 and contended that in a similar circumstance, this Court

had held that the respondent No.1 did not possess jurisdiction to

review his order.

6. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the

respondents submitted that the impugned order dated

01.08.2012 was ex-facie illegal inasmuch as the case was

advanced without notice to the respondents and the respondent

No.1 had unilaterally decided the case of the respondents.

7. A perusal of the provisions of the Act, 1964 makes it

clear that the respondent No.1 being a quasi judicial authority

was invested with inherent powers under Section 25 of the Act,

1964 to prevent abuse of the process of a revenue Court. In the

present case, the impugned notice dated 03.08.2012 discloses

that the petitioners had got the proceedings advanced without

notifying the respondents and thereafter the respondent No.1

had disposed of the appeal without hearing the respondents. This

certainly amounted to an abuse of the process of the revenue

Court and the respondent No.1 was therefore justified in issuing

notice to the petitioner to appear before him for reconsideration

of the order dated 01.08.2012.

8. In that view of the matter, the notice dated

03.08.2012 cannot be held to be illegal. Hence, there is no merit

in this writ petition and the same is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vnp*