B.P. Ashok vs The Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur District and Others

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.-The petitioner has filed this petition seeking for quashing the orders of respondent 1-Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-E.

The petitioner and Fifth respondent are said to be the cousins. According to the petitioner and 5th respondent, their fathers were full brothers and constituted a joint family. In the year 1939-40 there was a partition of the parties by metes and bounds and that the parties were enjoying their agricultural land holding separately. In the year 1991 there appears to have been some dispute with regard to the actual extent of land held by the parties in respect of Survey Numbers 36, 37 and 40 of Belagali Village in Chickmagalur District. A joint petition was submitted to the survey authorities for effecting the survey of the lands and making demarcation of the boundaries. In the said representation, it is stated that, during the lifetime of the fathers of the petitioner and 5th respondent a partition had taken place and that they have been enjoying the lands separately. Subsequent to the said representation, an application was made before the Tahsildar by the petitioner for effecting the katha change in respect of the survey No. 36, claiming that, he has been in possession of the same. Tahsildar, taking into the consideration and representation in Annexure-A and after the spot survey held that the petitioner is an possession and enjoyment of survey No. 36 to an extent of 15 acres 20 guntas and accordingly ordered mutation to be effected in favour of the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the said order, the 5th respondent filed an application before the Assistant Commissioner.

The Assistant Commissioner by his order at Annexure-D, confirmed the orders of the Tahsildar and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order, the 5th respondent filed revision before the Deputy Commissioner. In revision, the order of the Assistant Commissioner and as well of the Tahsildar are set aside and directed to delete the change of katha made in favour of the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is.

The Counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the Assistant Commissioner properly appreciated the question of delay in preferring the appeal after eight years. The contention of the petitioner that, the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction in the matter appears to be untenable, since under Section 136 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 all though, the orders made by the Appellate Authority have been given finality in sub-section (2) of Section 136, under sub-section (3) of Section 136, the Deputy Commissioner in revision has the discretionary jurisdiction to call for and examine records in respect of any orders made under Section 127 or 129 of Karnataka Land Revenue Act.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the exercise of revisional powers by the Deputy Commissioner should be absolutely suo motu in nature and that the revisional powers cannot be exercised at the instance of the any of the party to the proceedings in dispute. This arguments appears to be untenable. The revisional jurisdiction is purely a discretionary one irrespective of the nature and source of information, the Deputy Commissioner can take cognizance of such information and can find out the legality of the proceedings or the order. In other words, it does not debar any person who is a party to the proceedings and interested in the dispute to bring to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner about the legality. In that view of the matter, I do not find any error committed by the Deputy Commissioner in exercising revisional powers.

5-A. On the question of merits of the order of the Deputy Commissioner, it is noticed by the Deputy Commissioner that, there has been no transfer of interest or title during the year 1991 and it is only on the ground of continued possession, the katha has been changed. May be Deputy Commissioner has not taken note of the certain facts like the prior partition between the ancestors of the parties. The representation at Annexure-A is submitted for the purpose of effecting survey only. The contents of the said representation are disputed facts. It is also submitted by the respondent that a civil suit is already filed by the 5th respondent, to which the petitioner is a party. As the matter is already seized by the Civil Court, it is open for the parties to get their rights adjudicated regarding the possession and title to survey No. 36, and subject to the result of the suit, the change of katha entries have to made.

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

The Government Pleader is permitted to file a memo within four weeks.