Sri Channaiah vs The State of Karnataka & Ors.

The first respondent in Revision Petition No.112/2009-10 on the file of the second respondent - Deputy Commissioner in this proceedings has

come up in this writ petition impugning the order dated 12.1.2016.

Admittedly, the revision petition before the second respondent is under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, wherein the

revenue entry with reference to land bearing survey No.8/1 of Toobarapalya village, Solur Hobli, Magadi Taluk is under dispute.

It is the case of the petitioner that the land bearing Survey No.8/1 measures in all 1 acre, which is purchased by him under two registered sale

deeds dated 6.2.1978 and 27.4.1978, each in respect of an extent of 20 guntas from one Govindaiah, who according to the petitioner was the

absolute owner of the said property.

When matter stood thus, the revenue entries were subject matter of challenge on the premise that the property originally belonged to the fifth

respondent herein, who is said to be the younger brother of the petitioner. Proceeding was initiated by the petitioner in RA(LKP)48/2005-06 on

the file of the Assistant Commissioner, Ramangaram which came to be disposed of by order dated 31.10.2008, which was admittedly subject

matter of Revision Petition No.112/2009-10. It is seen that in the said proceedings, the fifth respondent herein who was the petitioner before the

Deputy Commissioner took up a contention that there was no sufficient opportunity to oppose the appeal and since there was no service of notice

to him, one more opportunity may be given to him to contest the same on merits. In the said proceedings, though there was enormous delay, the

same was condoned and the matter is ordered to be remanded to the Assistant Commissioner only with an intention that the petitioner therein gets

sufficient opportunity to establish his socalled right.

The grievance of the petitioner firstly is about the remand of the matter and secondly, about the reversal of revenue entries in the name of

Shantharaju even before the remanded matter is heard and disposed of. This Court takes serious note of the conduct of the revenue officials in

changing the revenue entries even before the remanded matter is heard and decided by the Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, this Court, while

disposing of this writ petition, would direct the third respondent - Assistant Commissioner to hear the appeal filed by the petitioner herein in

RA(LKP).48/2005-06 afresh and dispose of the same within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The outcome shall be

immediately implemented by recording the revenue entries in the name of the person who succeeds in that proceedings. With such observation, the

petition stands disposed of. Till such time, it is made clear that the standing trees on the land in question should not be cut by any of the parties to

the proceedings.