Karnataka High Court
Hanmanth S/O Lakshmappa Biradar Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 December, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
WP No. 105616 of 2022
C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
WRIT PETITION NO. 105616 OF 2022 (KLR-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 103313 OF 2017
IN WP NO.105616/2022
BETWEEN:
HANMANTH S/O. LAKSHMAPPA BIRADAR PATIL
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SORAGAVI VILLAGE, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN CODE-587313.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. HARSH DESAI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR MARG,
BENGALURU, PIN CODE-560001.
Digitally signed
by
MOHANKUMAR
MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR
B SHELAR
Date: 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
2023.12.22
11:09:06 +0530 BAGALKOT, NAVNAGAR, BAGALKOT,
TQ & DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN CODE-587103.
3. THE TAHASILDAR MUDHOL
TALUK MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
PIN CODE-587313.
4. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
JAMAKHANDI SUB-DIVISION, TQ: JAMAKHANDI,
DIST: BAGALKOT, PIN CODE-587301.
5. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS,
MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT,
PIN CODE-587313.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
WP No. 105616 of 2022
C/W WP No. 103313 of 2017
6. BALAPPA VENKAPPA PATIL
AGE: 70 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SORAGAVI VILLAGE, PIN CODE-587313,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
7. MALLAYYA SADASHIVAYYA VIBHUTI
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SORAGAVI VILLAGE, PIN CODE-587313.
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
8. GURUPADAYYA SADASHIVAYYA VIBHUTI
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SORAGAVI VILLAGE, PIN CODE-587313,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 5,
SRI. K. S. KORISHETTAR, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT NO.6,
SRI. MALLAYYA-RESPONDENT NO.7,
SRI. GURUPADAYYA-RESPONDENT NO.8)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING/IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01/07/2021
PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAGALKOT IN
PROCEEDINGS BEARING RP NO. 54/2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND
ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
09/08/2017 PASSED BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
JAMAKHANDI IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING RTC/CR/260/2016-17 VIDE
ANNEXURE-B.
BETWEEN
HANAMANTH S/O. LAXMAN BIRADAR PATIL
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SORAGAVI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. N. L. BATAKURKI, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. BALAPPA S/O. VENKAPPA BIRADAR PATIL
AGE: 65 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SORAGAVI, TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
2. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND
RECORDS, MUDHOL, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
3. THE TAHASILDAR, MUDHOL,
TQ: MUDHOL, DIST: BAGALKOT.
4. MALLAYYA SADASHIVAYYA VIBHUTI
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SORAGAVI, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
5. GURUPADAYYA SADASHIVAYYA VIBHUTI
AGE: 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
R/O. SORAGAVI, TQ: MUDHOL,
DIST: BAGALKOT.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BAGALKOT DISTRICT, BAGALKOT.
RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. C. HIREMATH AND SRI. S. B. HEBBALLI, ADV. FOR R1,
SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NO.2, 3 AND 6,
NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO. 4 AND 5 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF
CERTIORARI QUASHING IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.05.2016
PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER I.E. RESPONDENT NO.6 IN
PROCEEDINGS BEARING NO.REVIEW/REV/ PHODI/SR/01/2013-14
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ISSUE WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.10.2012 PASSED BY THE DEPUTY
COMMISSIONER I.E., RESPONDENT NO.6 IN PROCEEDINGS BEARING
NO.REV/PHODI/SR/18/2010-11, VIDE ANNEXURE-B.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
In W.P.No.103313/2017:
The petitioner is questioning the order dated
01.07.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner in
reviewing his own order dated 11.10.2012. The order
dated 11.10.2012 was an order passed in exercise of
power under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue
Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short).
2. The petition is filed on the premise that the
Deputy Commissioner has no power to review his own
order passed under Section 56 of the Act, and also on the
premise that the revision petition filed under Section 56 of
the Act is filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation
of 3 years 4 months and the Deputy Commissioner could
not have condoned the delay in filing the revision petition.
In addition, it is also urged that the impugned orders at
Annexure-A and B will unsettle the longstanding mutations
entries which are certified based on undisputed registered
sale deeds.
3. Facts in brief.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
4. On 17.05.1958, the original owners of the land
bearing Sy. No.144 of Soragavi village, Taluk Mudhol,
which totally measured 20 Acres and 37 guntas sold 6
acres through a registered sale deed in favour of
Hanamanth Ramsingh Rajput. The property purchased by
the Hanamanth Ramsingh Rajput was renumbered as
R.S.No.144/1 and the remaining extent of the land
retained by the original owners measuring 14 acres 37
guntas was renumbered as R.S.No.144/2.
5. On 21.04.1978, the purchaser Hanamant
Ramsingh Rajput sold entire 6 acres to one Dundappa
Kalappa Sutar and in turn, on 27.03.1982, Dundappa
Kalappa Sutar sold entire 6 acres to the petitioners' father.
On 11.08.2003, petitioners sold 2 acres of land to
Mallayya Vibhuti and 2 acres to Sadashivayya Vibhuti, i.e.,
respondents No.4 and 5 herein.
6. It is also necessary to refer some of the
transactions in respect of remaining 14 acres 37 guntas
which remained with the original owner, after the sale of 6
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
acres in the year 1958. On 27.07.1962, the 4 acres out of
the remaining 14 acres 37 guntas were sold to one Prahlad
Ningappa Gurav. It is also relevant to note that the
property sold is a part of the property bearing
R.S.No.144/2. Thus, the original owners retained title over
10 acres 37 guntas in Sy.No.144/2
7. This being the position, on 15.09.1982, the one
more sale deed was executed allegedly alienating 12 acres
to one Balappa Venkappa Biradarpatil, though the original
owners held only 10 acres 37 guntas by then.
acres from Pralhad Ningappa Gurav who allegedly had
purchased 12 acres under the registered sale deed though
his vendor had only 10 acres 37 guants. The purchaser
Balappa Venkappa Biradarpatil who purchased 4 acres of
land, gifted 2 acres of land to the government on
31.05.2004.
9. The dispute arose as the extent of land sold
under the registered sale deed dated 15.09.1982 reflected
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
12 acres, though only 10 acres 37 guntas were available
for sale. It is also relevant to mention here that mutations
were certified based on the registered sale deeds dated
17.05.1958, 21.04.1978, 27.03.1982 and 11.08.2003.
10. Respondent No.1 filed a revision petition under
Section 56 of the Act alleging that his name is not
reflected in the property records based on the registered
sale deed. The said revision petition was allowed vide
order dated 11.10.2012. In terms of the said order, the
Deputy Commissioner has set aside all the entries
pertaining to R.S.No.144 certified after 1958 and issued a
directions to measure the property afresh by taking into
account the actual enjoyment of the properties by the
parties to the proceedings.
11. It appears that an application is filed to review
the said order. Pursuant to the said application, impugned
order dated 12.05.2016 is passed allowing the review
petition, and a direction is issued to prepare records afresh
by taking into consideration the extent in the registered
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
sale deeds as well as entries in the original revenue
records. The orders passed in review petition as well as
the order passed under Section 56 of the Act are called in
question.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would contend that the Deputy Commissioner is not
conferred with the jurisdiction to review his own order
passed under Section 56 of the Act. It is also urged that
the petition under Section 56 of the Act was barred by
limitation. He further submits that once the mutations are
certified pursuant to the registered sale deeds in favour of
the petitioners' predecessors, the said mutations cannot
be unsettled many decades after the sale in favour of the
petitioners' predecessors in title, that too on the basis of a
sale deed wherein the property is apparently sold in
excess of the land available.
13. The learned Sri Korishettear for the contesting
respondents would justify the order and would contend
that under Section 25 of the Act, the authority has the
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
power to review its own order notwithstanding the fact
that there is no specific provision conferring the review
jurisdiction. In support of his contention, he placed
reliance on the judgment of this court in K.R.Lakshman
Vs State of Karnataka and Others in ILR 1995 KAR
1871.
14. The learned counsel Sri.Harsh Desai by way of
reply would place reliance on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union vs Management of
M/s Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mill Ltd. And
Others in AIR 2005 SC 1782.
15. This court has considered the contentions raised
at the bar.
16. Section 56 (1) and (3) of the Act reads as
under:
"56. Power of Revision.--(1) The Tribunal, any
Revenue Officer not inferior in rank to an Assistant
Commissioner, and any Survey Officer not inferior in
rank to a 1 [Deputy Director of Land Records]1 or an
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
Assistant Settlement Officer in their respective
departments, may call for and examine the record of any
inquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate officer
under this Act 1 [or under section 54 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908)]1 for the
purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may
be, as to the legality or propriety of the proceedings of
such officer."
(3) No application for revision under this section and
no power of revision on such application shall be exercised
against any order in respect of which an appeal under this
Chapter has been preferred and no application for revision
shall be entertained unless such application is presented
within a period of four months from the date of such order:
Provided that any Revenue Officer or Survey Officer
referred to in sub-section (1) may exercise power under this
section in respect of any order against which no appeal has
been preferred under this Chapter, at any time within three
years from the date of the order sought to be revised.
Explanation.--In computing the period of limitation for
the purpose of this subsection, any period during which any
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or an
injunction by any court shall be excluded.
17. On perusal of the aforementioned provision, it
is apparent Section 56 confers the jurisdiction of Revision.
Section 56(3) prescribes 4 months period of limitation.
However, the proviso to Section 56 (3) provides that the
authority can exercise the power under Section 56(1)
within three years from the date of the order which is
sought to be revised.
18. Shri Desai has also invited the attention of the
Court to Section 52 of the Act. The said provision reads as
under:-
"52. Application of the Limitation Act.--Save as
otherwise provided in this Act, the provisions of sections
4, 5 and 12 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (Central Act 36 of
1963) shall mutatis mutandis apply to all appeals under
this Act."
19. On a reading of Section 52 of the Act, it is
apparent that power conferred under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, i.e. the power to condone the delay if
sufficient cause is made, is available only in respect of the
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
appeals under the Act. The power to condone the delay
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not conferred on
the authority authorized to hear the revision petition under
Section 56 of the Act. The combined reading of Sections
52 and 56 of the Act would lead to a conclusion that in
case the revision is barred by limitation, the authority
exercising power under Section 56 of the Act can condone
the delay up to three years and not beyond.
20. Admittedly, the orders sought to be revised
are the orders/entries certified in the year 1958 and
thereafter. Thus, the Deputy Commissioner could not have
condoned the delay in filing the revision petition and could
not have entertained the revision petition. Thus, Order at
Annexure B in exercise of power under Section 56 is
illegal.
21. That apart, the order at Annexure-A in exercise
of assumed review jurisdiction is also erroneous.
Admittedly, there is no provision which is confers the
power to review the order passed under Section 56 of the
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
Act. It is well settled principle of law that power of review
is a creature of Statute. The Act has not conferred any
such power.
22. Though Mr. Korishettar contends that under
Section 25 of the Act the Deputy Commissioner can review
his own order, the contention cannot be accepted. Section
25 of the Act reads as under:
"25. Saving of inherent powers of a Revenue
Court.--Nothing in this Act, shall be deemed to limit or
otherwise affect the inherent power of the Revenue Court
to make such orders as may be necessary for the ends of
justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the
Revenue Court."
(emphasis supplied)
23. On a reading of the provision it is evident that
the inherent power to pass some orders under the Act, by
the authorities under the Act is recognised. However the
inherent powers recognised are qualified by the
expressions ''as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to
prevent the abuse of the process of the Revenue Court." The said
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
expression would make it abundantly clear that the
revenue Court has jurisdiction to pass such orders as may
be necessary in the ends of justice and to prevent the
abuse of the process of the revenue Court.
24. The impugned order at Annexure-A does not
record any such circumstances to exercise power under
Section 25 of the Act. Since the order at Annexure-B
which is passed in exercise of power under Section 56 of
the Act is passed in total disregard to the proviso to
Section 56 (3) of the Act, perhaps the Deputy
Commissioner had the power to review and recall the
order by referring to proviso to Section 56(3) of the Act.
On the other hand Deputy Commissioner has perpetuated
the error by passing an order in the review petition which
he could not have passed under Section 56 of the Act.
Thus, the contention that order is passed in exercise of
inherent jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Act, cannot
be accepted.
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
25. The impugned orders passed by the Deputy
Commissioner resulted in unsettling the mutations which
have been certified decades ago, based on the registered
sale deeds which have not been questioned or cancelled.
26. Admittedly, petitioners' predecessors in title
had purchased the part of the property bearing Sy. No.144
much earlier to purchase of the part of erstwhile Sy.
No.144, by the contesting respondents. After the first sale
in the year 1958, there was a sub-division dividing the
property bearing R.S.No.144 in two distinct numbers
namely, R.S.No.144/1 and 144/2. Apparently, the
respondent No.1 claims that the vendor of R.S.No.144/2
has sold 12 acres, when on the face of the record the
vendor had only 10 acres and 37 guntas.
27. For the aforementioned reasons,
W.P.No.103313/2017 is allowed. The orders dated
12.05.2016 and 11.10.2012 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner vide Annexures-A and B are quashed.
- 16 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
28. This court in W.P.No.103313/2017 quashed the
orders dated 12.05.2016 and 11.10.2012 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner. Pursuant to the aforementioned
orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner, the Assistant
Commissioner had passed the orders to enter the name of
contesting respondent in the property records by reducing
the extent of the land belonging to the petitioners. The
Tahasildar has given effect to the order of the Assistant
Commissioner and the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner.
29. The petitioners filed a petition before the
Deputy Commissioner challenging the order dated
09.08.2017 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, who in
turn had passed an order for effecting changes in the
property records of Sy. No.144/1 and 144/2 of Soragavi
village, Taluk Mudhol. The said order was called in
question by filing R.P. No.54/2017 before the Deputy
Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner has dismissed
- 17 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
the said petition subject to the result of the W.P.
No.103313/2017.
30. Since in W.P.No103313/2017 the order passed
by the Deputy Commissioner in exercise of power under
Section 56 of the Act and also the order reviewing the
order under Section 56 of the Act are quashed, the
impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner is
quashed.
31. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The
order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Bagalkot in R.P.No.54/2007 vide Annexure-
A and the order dated 09.08.2017 passed by the Assistant
Commissioner, Jamakhandi vide Annexure-B are quashed.
The name of the petitioner is to be restored to an extent of
32. It is made clear that this court has not
adjudicated title of the contesting parties, if any, relating
to the properties in question. If there is any title dispute,
pursuant to the aforementioned sale deeds, the same shall
- 18 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14819
be adjudicated in a competent civil Court without being
influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
MBS/ct-an
