Karnataka High Court
Shri.Basappa @ Maladinni S/O Revappa ... vs The Assistant Commissioner on 5 June, 2024
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7498
WP No. 102780 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.102780 OF 2018 (KLR-RES)
BETWEEN:
SHRI. BASAPPA @ MALADINNI
S/O REVAPPA DONGRI,
AGE: 27 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: GORAGUDDI, TQ: SAVADATTI,
DIST: BELAGAVI.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI VYAS DESAI AND
SRI JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATES)
AND:
1. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER,
BAILHONGAL, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. THE TAHSILDAR,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP)
Digitally signed
by
YASHAVANT
NARAYANKAR
YASHAVANT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
NARAYANKAR KARNATAKA
DHARWAD
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
BENCH
Date:
2024.06.11
12:44:27
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUED A WRIT IN
+0530
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER BEARING
NO.KLR/AP-17/2014-15 DATED 07.05.2016 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-"E" AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7498
WP No. 102780 of 2018
ORDER
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
HCGP for the respondent-State.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to
quash the impugned order dated 07.05.2016 passed by
respondent No.1, vide Annexure-E and has also sought for
writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to not
disturb his peaceful possession and occupation of the land in
question.
3. It is the case of petitioner that he is in actual
possession and enjoyment of the property agricultural land
bearing R.S.No.311/2A, measuring 04 acres 14 guntas PK
00.04 guntas assessed at Rs.3.00 ps., totally measuring 04
acres 14 guntas situated within the limits of Makkalageri
village, Taluk Gokak, district Belagavi. Petitioner contends
that he has been cultivating the land since a long period
from the time of his forefathers and the record of rights also
stand in the name of the petitioner and his father. It is the
contention of petitioner that the name of petitioner was
deleted after his father died on 31.10.2003 in the mutation
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7498
entry without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing and
therefore there is a violation of basic fundamental principles
of issuance of notice and principles of natural justice of a fair
hearing and notice before passing any order on the mutation
entries. Therefore, the order has been passed by the
respondent-Assistant Commissioner behind the back by
deleting the name of father of the petitioner and including
the name of Government. Hence aggrieved by the said order
passed by the Assistant Commissioner, petitioner is before
this court challenging the same on the grounds urged
therein, primarily on the ground of there being no notice
issued before passing any orders on the change of mutation
entries. Secondly, the principle of natural justice is not
followed, no fair hearing or opportunity is given to the
petitioner to have a say on the change of mutation entries
and no inspection or inquiry was conducted with regard to
petitioner or his father or forefathers having been in
cultivation of the land. Hence, the present petition.
4. Per Contra, the learned HCGP representing the State
contends that petition would not be maintainable as the
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7498
order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, though under
Section 118(2b) of Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for
short, 'the Act, 1961') read with Section 136(2) of the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 on the appeal, a revision
would lie under Section 118 of the Act, 1961 before the
Regional Commissioner. Therefore, she contends that the
writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioner would
have to explore alternative efficacious remedy available
under Section 118 of the Act, 1961.
5. This Hon'ble Court, in a full bench Judgment
rendered in the case of Guru Raj @ Guru Nath Govindra vs.
State of Karnataka, reported in ILR 1994 Kar 2341, has
dealt with the matter as to whether Section 118(2b) and
118A of Act, 1961 "final" no general principle as to whether
open to revision but on the scheme of Act, legislative history
and language of provision on the order passed by the
Assistant Commissioner subject to revision by the Divisional
Commissioner and the expression 'final' only pertaining to
appeal. Answering the question made out there, the full
bench has held that, a revision would lie under Section 118A
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7498
of the Act, 1961 against an order made by the Assistant
Commissioner in a proceedings arising under Section
118(2b) of the Act, 1961 and we answer the question
referred to us accordingly. When such being the case, on any
order passed under Section 118(2b) of the Act, 1961, though
it states that such appeal shall be final, the proviso to
Section 118A of the Act, 1961 is provided where revision is
maintainable and the order of the Assistant Commissioner is
revisionable under Section 118A. Under the circumstances,
the present petition would not be maintainable. The
petitioner would have to approach the revisional authority for
redressing his grievance.
6. Under the circumstances, without adverting to the
merits of the matter as to whether notice was properly
given, fair opportunity was given or not and the opportunity
of hearing by following the principles of natural justice, the
petitioner is at liberty to move the revisional authorities
under Section 118 of the Act, 1961. This petition is not
maintainable.
NC: 2024:KHC-D:7498
7. The time spent herein shall be condoned under
Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
8. All contents are left open for the petitioner to urge
before the revision authority on such revision being filed, the
same shall be disposed of expeditiously.
Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
CKK
CT:BCK
