U. D. Nagaraj vs The Deputy Commissioner
2023 Latest Caselaw 1825 Kant

                                          -1-
                                                    WA No.5813 of 2017




                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
                        DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
                                       PRESENT
                         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
                                          AND
                      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
                         WRIT APPEAL NO.5813 OF 2017 (KLR-RES)
               BETWEEN:

               1.   U.D. NAGARAJ
                    AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
                    S/O DEVIRAIAH
                    UDEWARA POST, BELAGODU HOBLI
                    SAKLESHPURA TALUK
Digitally           HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.
signed by
RUPA V
                                                          ...APPELLANT
Location:
High Court     (BY SRI. SHIVARAMU H.C. ADV.,)
of Karnataka
               AND:

               1.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
                    HASSAN DISTRICT
                    HASSAN-573 201.

               2.   A.G. GIDDEGOWDA
                    AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
                    S/O GIDDEGOWDA.

               3.   H.D. ANNEGOWDA
                    AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
                    S/O DASEGOWDA.

               4.   KEMPEGOWDA
                    AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
                    S/O HIREGOWDA.

               5.   PUTTEGOWDA
                    AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS
                    S/O HANUMEGOWDA.
                            -2-
                                    WA No.5813 of 2017




6.   H.G. LOKESH
     AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
     S/O GIDDEGOWDA.

     RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 ARE
     R/OF HOSAKOPPAL, BELAGODU HOBLI
     SAKLESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201.

                                        ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G. AGA FOR R1
R2-A, R3, R4, R5 & R6 SERVED)

     THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
24/04/2017 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION 9573/2011 IN SO FAR
AS THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION" IN TERMS OF THE ORDER
OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER DATED 15/06/2006 VIDE
ANNEXURE-F, THE THASILDAR TO DO THE NEEDFUL IN
TERMS OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER".

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS
DAY ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                      JUDGMENT

This intra Court appeal has been filed against an

order dated 24.04.2017 passed by the learned Single

Judge by which the writ petition preferred by the

appellant has been allowed and the order passed by the

Deputy Commissioner dated 07.12.2010 has been

quashed. However, the learned Single Judge has

directed the Tahsildar to comply with the directions

contained in the order dated 15.06.2006 passed by the

WA No.5813 of 2017

Assistant Commissioner. The appellant in this appeal is

aggrieved by the aforesaid direction issued by the

learned Single Judge.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of this appeal briefly

stated are that the appellant was granted land

measuring 3 acres 5 guntas in Sy.No.146, Balegodu

Village, Balegodu Hobli, Sakaleshpur Taluk. Sometime

in the year 1981-82, after obtaining permission from the

Tahsildar, the appellant sold land measuring 1 acre 20

guntas to one Balakrishna Rai on 03.11.2004. The

remaining land was retained by him.

3. The villagers approached the Tahsildar by filing

an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land

Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')

in which a challenge was made to the order of

Sheristedar by which the name of the purchaser was

mutated in the revenue record. The Assistant

WA No.5813 of 2017

Commissioner, by an order dated 15.06.2006, partly

allowed the appeal in which it was inter alia held that

the appellant has violated the condition of the grant as

he has not cultivated the land for a period of 3 years.

The Assistant Commissioner also set aside the order

dated 21.02.2005 passed by the Sheristedar.

4. The appellant thereupon filed a revision before

the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the

Act which was dismissed by an order dated 07.12.2010.

In the writ petition, the appellant only challenged the

validity of the order dated 07.12.2010 passed by the

Deputy Commissioner. The learned Single Judge, by an

order dated 24.04.2017 inter alia held that the appellant

has not challenged the order passed by the Assistant

Commissioner and has accepted the same. However,

the learned Single Judge held that the Deputy

Commissioner has exceeded his jurisdiction by directing

the Tahsildar to enter the name of the State

WA No.5813 of 2017

Government in the revenue records. Accordingly, the

order passed by the Deputy Commissioner was

quashed. However, the Tahsildar was directed to

comply with the directions contained in the order

passed by the Assistant Commissioner.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted

that the learned Single Judge ought to have appreciated

that the Assistant Commissioner has exceeded the

jurisdiction while recording a finding with regard to

violation of the condition of the grant by the appellant.

6. On the other hand, learned Additional

Government Advocate has supported the order passed

by the learned Single Judge.

7. We have considered the submissions made on

both sides and have perused the record. Being

aggrieved by the order dated 21.02.2005 passed by the

WA No.5813 of 2017

Sheristedar, villagers have filed an appeal under Section

136(2) of the Act. The Assistant Commissioner was

therefore, required to examine the validity of the order

dated 21.02.2005 passed by the Sheristedar. However,

the Assistant Commissioner travelled beyond the scope

of the proceeding and examined the issue as to whether

the appellant had violated the terms and conditions of

the grant. Thereafter, the Assistant Commissioner

directed the Tahsildar to initiate proceeding under Rule

25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. Thus, the

Assistant Commissioner travelled beyond the scope of

the appeal and directed the Tahsildar to initiate

proceeding under Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant

Rules and clearly exceeded the jurisdiction in travelling

beyond the scope of appeal. The aforesaid order was

affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner. The learned

Single Judge has therefore rightly quashed the order

passed by the Deputy Commissioner. This Court has

power to mould the relief. The learned Single Judge

WA No.5813 of 2017

therefore ought to have appreciated that the Assistant

Commissioner while passing the order dated

15.06.2006, had clearly travelled beyond the scope of

the appeal in examining the issue pertaining to the

grant of the appellant which was not under challenge

and therefore, ought not have directed its

implementation.

For the aforementioned reasons, the order dated

15.06.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner is

quashed. Needless to state that the respondents shall

be at liberty to initiate a proceeding for cancellation of

grant against the appellant, if so advised.

Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE RV