Karnataka High Court
Sri Jayaprakash D Karkikar vs The Deputy Commissioner on 8 April, 2024
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:14503
WP No. 14741 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 14741 OF 2020 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. JAYAPRAKASH D. KARKIKAR
S/O DAYANANDA KARKIKAR,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT MURUDESHWARA VILLAGE AND POST,
NEAR SYNDICATE BANK, BHATKALA TALUK,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT - 581 350.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
UDUPI DISTRICT,
OFFICE OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
RAJATADRI BUILDING,
MANIPAL POST,
Digitally signed UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 104.
by
DHARMALINGAM
Location: HIGH
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
COURT OF KUNDAPURA SUB-DIVISION,
KARNATAKA
KUNDAPURA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
3. THE TAHASILDAR
BHARMAVARA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
4. MR. SHIRIYARA MUDDANNA SHETTY
S/O LATE. K. DUGGAPPA SHETTY,
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
R/AT SHIRIYARA VILLAGE AND POST,
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 567 210.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:14503
WP No. 14741 of 2020
5. SRI. RAMU S. SHETTY
S/O. SANJEEVA SHETTY,
AGED AOBUT 50 YEARS,
GILIYARU VILLAGE, KOTA POST,
BHARMAVARA TALUK,
UDUPI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI. VARADARAJ R. HAVALDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4;
V/O/D/ 15.12.2020, NOTICE TO R5 IS D/W)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 02.11.2020 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN
PROCEEDINGS NO. C DISC.RAP/SR/33/2019 IN SO FAR
REVIEWING THE ORDER DATED 11.12.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-G
BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER IN PROCEEDINGS NO.RAP
36/2016-17 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL, THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner is aggrieved of the impugned order
dated 02.11.2020 at Annexure-A, which is an order in
review passed by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner,
Udupi District.
2. A brief background may be required to understand
the dispute that was brought before the Deputy
Commissioner. One Smt.Padma Hegde acquired 2.78
NC: 2024:KHC:14503
Acres of land in terms of a Partition Deed dated
05.01.2008. Smt.Padma Hegde, disposed of various pieces
of land under six sale deeds during the year 2009 to 2020.
What remained with Smt.Padma Hegde was 1.9450 Acres.
The petitioner herein had entered into an agreement dated
15.06.2009 in respect of 1.88 Acres through the Power of
Attorney Holder of Smt.Padma Hedge. When the owner of
the property did not come forward for executing the
absolute sale deed, the petitioner herein filed a suit in
O.S.No.27/2012 for Specific Performance of the Contract.
3. It is contended that an order of Temporary
Injunction was granted by the Senior Civil Judge at
Kundapura, restraining the landlord from alienating the
suit schedule property during the pendency of the suit.
However, it is alleged that during the pendency of the suit
and the order of Temporary Injunction being in force, the
4th respondent herein who was the Advocate appearing for
Smt.Padma Hedge purchased the suit schedule property
through another Power of Attorney Holder of Smt.Padma
NC: 2024:KHC:14503
Hegde, who was also her brother. The sale deed was got
executed on 08.06.2015. Nevertheless, the suit was
decreed on 15.07.2015 with a direction to the defendant-
Smt.Padma Hegde to execute a sale deed in favour of the
plaintiff/petitioner. Smt.Padma Hegde filed a regular
appeal in R.A.No.3/2015 before the Additional District and
Sessions Judge, calling in question the order passed by the
trial court. In the meanwhile, the 4th respondent herein
sought to get his name entered in the land records. The
respondent-Tahsildar allowed the application and issued a
direction to enter the name of the 4th respondent in the
land record on the strength of the registered sale deed.
The said order of the Tahsildar was questioned by the
petitioner herein before the Assistant Commissioner in
RRT(2) SR 31/2016-17, wherein the 4th respondent was
arraigned as 2nd respondent. The Assistant Commissioner
dismissed the appeal and consequently, the petitioner
approached the Deputy Commissioner invoking the
revisional powers under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
NC: 2024:KHC:14503
Act, 1964', for short). The Deputy Commissioner allowed
the Revision Petition by order dated 11.12.2017 while
setting aside the order of the Special Tahsildar and
directed restoration of the name of Smt.Padma Hegde in
the land records.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
although an order was passed by the Deputy
Commissioner on 11.12.2017 directing restoration of
name of Smt.Padma Hegde in the land records, in the
meanwhile, the 4th respondent herein filed applications
before the Additional District and Sessions Court in the
regular appeal seeking to implead himself. Learned
Counsel submits that all such applications were dismissed
by the regular appellate court. Thereafter, the 4th
respondent herein moved the Deputy Commissioner to
invoke his power of review in terms of Section 25 of the
Act. As a consequence of such an application being filed
at the hands of the 4th respondent, the Deputy
Commissioner has passed the impugned order on
NC: 2024:KHC:14503
02.11.2020 at Annexure-A, recalling his own order while
allowing the review petition and directing the respondent-
Tahsildar to enter the name of the 4th respondent on the
strength of the registered sale deed.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that
the impugned order cannot be sustained, because the
Deputy Commissioner could not have passed the
impugned order reviewing his own order invoking Section
25 of the Act. Moreover, it is submitted that the earlier
order of the Deputy Commissioner directing the
restoration of the name of the original owner Smt.Padma
Hegde in the land records was in accordance with law,
having regard to the fact that a regular appeal was
pending consideration and therefore, the parties would
have to await the final outcome of the regular appeal.
6. The learned Counsel would also further bring to
notice of this Court that the 4th respondent filed two suits
challenging the orders passed by the Deputy
Commissioner and such suits were dismissed on the
NC: 2024:KHC:14503
ground of the bar provided in the Act, wherein the powers
for passing orders in respect of the revenue entries were
exclusively within the domine of the revenue authorities
and the civil courts were barred from entertaining any
such plea regarding the revenue entries.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the 4th respondent
sought to place reliance on a decision of this Court in the
case of Sri.Lakshman Vs. State of Karnataka and others,
reported in ILR 1995 KAR. 1871, wherein it was held that
Sections 24 and 25 of the Act did not put any fetters
affecting the inherent powers of the revenue courts to
make such orders as may be necessary to meet the ends
of justice or prevent abuse of the court.
8. The learned Counsel would further submit that
having regard to the express provisions contained in
Section 128 of the Act, since the 4th respondent acquired
title over the land in question under a registered
document, the 4th respondent is legally entitled to have his
name entered in the land records.
NC: 2024:KHC:14503
9. Having heard the learned Counsels for the
petitioner as well as the contesting 4th respondent and on
perusing the petition papers this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner invoking Section 25 of the Act to review his
own order cannot be sustained. This Court has held in the
case of Sri.Nataraj K and others Vs. State of Karnataka
and others, in W.P.No.6357/2023 dated 06.03.2024,
having regard to several other precedents that such power
of review may be exercised, on the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due
diligence was not within the knowledge of the person
seeking review or could not be produced by him at the
time when the order was passed; it may be exercised
where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous
ground. Further, having regard to a more recent decisions
of the Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Naresh
Kumar and others Vs. Government (NCT of Delhi)
reported in (2019) 9 SCC 416 and Kapra Mazdoor Ekta
NC: 2024:KHC:14503
Union Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd.,
and Another, reported in (2005) 13 SCC 777, it has been
held that where a court or quasi judicial authority having
jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit proceeds to do so, its
judgment or order can be reviewed on merit only if the
court or the quasi judicial authority is vested with power of
review by express provision or by necessary implication.
10. Having regard to the said judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has held that it is clear
that the quasi judicial authorities are not permitted to
review their orders unless such powers are expressly
vested in them by the statute. The provision in Section 25
only enables the revenue authorities to invoke the
inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary
for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of process
of the revenue court. It was therefore held that the
provisions contained in Sections 24 or 25 do not expressly
provide for review of an order passed by the revenue
authorities.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14503
11. In that view of the matter, the impugned order
cannot be sustained. This Court is also of the considered
opinion that the previous order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner in the Revision Petition is to be upheld
because it would maintain the revenue entries in the name
of the original owner and therefore, till there is a final
decision of the lis between the parties, in the suit and the
appeal, the revenue authorities are required to be
maintain the revenue records in the name of original
owner Smt.Padma Hegde.
12. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 02.11.2020 at Annexure-A passed
by the respondent-Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District,
invoking Section 25 of the Act, is hereby quashed and set
aside. In terms of the order passed by the Deputy
Commissioner dated 11.12.2017, in C.DIS.R.A.P.
36/2016-17, the revenue entries shall be maintained in
the name of Smt.Padma Hedge, till the outcome of the
regular appeal in R.A.No.3/2015 which is pending
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:14503
consideration on the file of Additional District and Sessions
Judge at Kundapura or pending consideration before the
court where it is transferred in view of the jurisdiction.
Ordered accordingly.
13. Pending I.A.s, if any, stand disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DL
CT:PH
