AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B. Manohar, J.—The petitioner in this writ petition is challenging the endorsement dated 1.2.2012 issued by the 1st respondent/Deputy
Commissioner holding that the petitioner cannot maintain the revision petition u/s 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short ''Act'')
against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner u/s 136(2) of the Act. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that against the
order passed by the 2nd respondent/Assistant Commissioner u/s 136(2) of the Act, he preferred a revision petition u/s 136(3) of the Act before
the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent relying upon the order made in WP No. 11953/2011 disposed of on 18.8.2011 issued an endorsement to
the effect that the revision petition is not maintainable. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the 1st
respondent is contrary to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court reported in ILR 2012 Kar. 4571. The Full Bench of this Court taking
into consideration the divergent view expressed by two Benches held that the revision petition is maintainable u/s 136(3) against the order passed
by the Assistant Commissioner u/s 136(2) of the Act. Hence, the order passed by the 1st respondent cannot be sustained.
I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. The issue raised by the petitioner is fully covered by
the judgment of this Court referred above. The Full Bench of this Court clearly held that against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner
u/s 136(2) of the Act, the revision petition is maintainable u/s 136(3) of the Act.
Following the said judgment, I allow the writ petition and quash the endorsement dated 1.2.2012 issued by the 1st respondent/Deputy
Commissioner vide Annexure-F and remit the matter to the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate order on merit in
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.