AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
B.V. Nagarathna, J.—Learned counsel appearing for the State, which is the petitioner herein as well as the learned counsel for the first respondent jointly submit that the writ petition could be disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 793/2012 and connected writ appeals disposed of on 9.11.2012 as also the order dated 30.10.2013 passed in W.P. No. 46435/2013 and connected matters and order dated 2.6.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 31778/2011.
Submission of the learned counsel is placed on record.
The relevant portion of the order of the Division Bench is extracted as follows for immediate reference:
"The proceedings before the learned Single Judge assailed the orders passed under Section: 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short ''the Act'') passed by the Deputy Commissioner and inter alia in that regard, found no justification for its intervention in the matter.
Briefly stated, the facts are that the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government of Karnataka, had reported the possibility of Government land having been encroached upon by several persons. With regard to this alleged unauthorized occupation of Government land, an enquiry was conducted by the Regional Commissioner and the Tahsildar appears to have reported that the land was a Gomal land and that the revenue entries were bogus. In further proceedings, it was held that there is no warrant for altering the revenue records standing in the name of the respondents respectively. In respect of that decision, Section 136(3) of the Act came to be invoked suo motu by the Deputy Commissioner. That provision however only envisages the calling of records for an examination as to the mutation entries, recorded under Sections 127 and 129 of the Act. This enquiry therefore was necessarily restricted and within narrow compass.
During, the course of submissions learned Counsel, have taken us through Section 67(2) of the Act, which is no doubt of much higher amplitude and among other factors, provide for the filing of a Civil suit by any of the parties who may be aggrieved by the decision under that section.
It is in these circumstances that these appeals are sought to be withdrawn, under the instructions from the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, in order to enable the State to avail itself either of the provision of Section 67(2) of the Act or for the filing of a Civil Suit or any other proceeding available to the State.
Therefore, it is justifiably submitted that the Writ Petitions itself may be permitted to be withdrawn with the consequence that these appeals shall also stand withdrawn. The Writ Petitions as well as Writ Appeals are dismissed as withdrawn. In these circumstances, the Authority or the Court whose jurisdiction may be invoked by the State Government shall decide the dispute without being influenced in any manner by the impugned order or by the observations made in the proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Act. Needless to state all the parties shall be free to raise whatever contentions they are advised to articulate in any future proceeding, if initiated.
Parties to bear their respective costs."
The relevant portion of the order passed by me on 30.10.2013 is also extracted as under:
"4. The order of the Division Bench is squarely applicable to these cases also. In that view of the matter, these Writ Petitions are permitted to be withdrawn in terms of the order of the Division Bench. The State is permitted to withdraw these petitions with liberty to initiate any action under Section 67(2) of the Act or by filing a Civil Suit against any of the respondents or initiate any other proceeding available to the State. It is needless to observe that if any such proceeding is initiated by the State, those proceeding would not be influenced by any observations made in the proceeding under Section 136(3) of the Act or by the impugned order.
All contentions of all the parties are left open.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, Writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn."
A similar order has been passed by me on 2.6.2014 in Writ Petition No. 31778/2011. Following the above orders, the present writ petition is dismissed, subject to the observations made in those orders.