AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—Persons feeling difficulty in respect of orders passed by revenue authorities in exercise of appellate jurisdiction u/s 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 [for short, the Act] or revisional jurisdiction u/s 136(3) of the Act, can definitely get their grievances solved by filing a suit before civil court, get their rights resolved in respect of immovable properties for the reflection of which rights in the revenue entries statutory provisions are made and if the revenue entry is in any way at variance with the determination made by the civil court, to bring it in conformity with the determination by the civil court.
Disputes relating to immovable properties cannot be resolved in revenue offices, though revenue authorities have the responsibility to maintain revenue records for the purpose of realizing revenue to the state from the owner of the property. There is no more significance to the khata assigned by the revenue authorities.
With revenue to the state from such land revenue having become abysmally low, it is high time such darbar jurisdiction of revenue authorities is brought to an end and procedure for collecting land revenue streamlined.
It is rather unfortunate our legislature is sleeping over such matters and does not update the laws. We suffer under laws made in a bygone era only suited to serve the requirement of a feudal state, reigning over the subjects of this country by a foreign power!
Our independence and our country becoming republic will have no meaning and significance if we do not usher in laws which meet requirements of the people in our country and in our society, and which can respond to the hopes and aspirations of our people.
It is high time that the Act essentially based on the Karnataka Land Revenue Code, 1888, is given a second or a third look and the statutory provisions pruned to ensure that it serves the purpose for which law is made.
It is for this reason, though the Petitioner is complaining in respect of certain orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner while exercising appellate jurisdiction u/s 136(2) of the Act. I am of the opinion this is not a fit case for exercise of the discretionary writ jurisdiction.
Even as provided in the proviso to Section 135 of the very enactment, the proper course of action is to approach the civil court and it is for such reason, these writ petitions are not examined any further but dismissed at the threshold.