Javaramma vs Deputy Commissioner

B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 19.12.2011 passed by the 1st respondent - Deputy Commissioner, Mysore (Annexure-A). By that order, the 1st respondent has stated that the revision petitions filed before him are not maintainable and that no new revision petitions should be considered or filed.

It is the case of the petitioners that he has filed revision petition before the 1st respondent - Deputy Commissioner and that petition is pending adjudication. During the pendency of that revision petition, the impugned order dated 19.12.2011 is passed.

I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Addl. Government Advocate, who appears for the respondents and perused the material on record.

In view of the decision of this Court in Sri Ashok Vs. Shri Pandurang and Others, the earlier decisions of this Court in the case of Srimanmaharaja Niranjana Jagadguru Mallikarjuna Murugarajendra Mahaswamy Vs. Deputy Commissioner, and the decision of Mallegowda Vs. C. Channaveeregowda and The Chamundeshwari Sugar Company Bharathinagar (K.M. Doddi) have been held to be not good law. The Full Bench has also stated that a revision filed under sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is maintainable against an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under sub-section (2) of Section 136 of that Act.

In that view of the matter, impugned order at Annexure-A dated 19.12.2011 is quashed. The 1st respondent is directed to consider the revision filed by the petitioner herein, copy of the memorandum of which is produced at Annexure-C, in accordance with law.

Writ petition stands disposed in the aforesaid terms.