Mayappa Vs. Mayappa Beerappa Kurbar and ors.

Mayappa vs Mayappa Beerappa Kurbar and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Feb 08, 2006

~5 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/374996

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/374996
Court: Karnataka High Court
Judge: K. Ramanna, J.
Decided On: Feb 08, 2006
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 45498/04
Subject: Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

KARNATAKA LAND REVENUE ACT, 1964 - SECTIONS 49, 50, 56, 139-Revision and Appeal-order passed by Deputy Director of Land Records-Revision filed before Joint Director whether maintainable - HELD - When an appeal is filed under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the Second Appeal lies to the Joint Director o...

Key legal issue: Property
Acts & sections: Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 49, 50, 56, 56(1), 56(3) and 139

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mayappa

Advocate Umesh R. Malimath Adv.

Respondent

Mayappa Beerappa Kurbar and ors.

Advocate R. Kumar, H.C.G.P. for R-6-8 and ;B.S. Kamate, Adv. for R-2 to 5, R-1, Sd. Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 49, 50, 56, 56(1), 56(3) and 139
Reported In: ILR2006KAR1537; 2006(3)KarLJ245

Excerpt

.....to the aggrieved party to choose.; writ petition disposed of. - labour & services. dismissal from service: [subhash b. adi, j] order passed by appellate authority instead of disciplinary authority validity - held, no doubt, under the standing orders the order of dismissal has to be passed only by project engineer or an officer of equal cadre. object of holding enquiry before the punishment is imposed is that, the employee gets fair chance to defend his case and should not be punished without enquiry. appeal is provided to give further opportunity to the employee to question the order of dismissal if it is erroneous. in this case, as far as the enquiry is concerned no error is pointed out and the respondent/employee had an opportunity to defend his case. the enquiry officer has found that the charge is proved. what ought to have been considered by the disciplinary authority has been considered by the appellate authority. it is not a case, that, the respondent/employee has no further appeal or right to file petition, the respondent/employee has filed the petition before the managing director who is reviewing authority. this means the respondent/employee had not only had the opportunity before the enquiry officer but also before the chief engineer by way of reply to second show cause notice and thereafter before the reviewing authority. assuming that the decision of the authorities is erroneous, still the respondent being workman had right to raise dispute on the question of fairness of the enquiry and also on the question of perversity, victimization and unfair labour practice. in view of this, it cannot be said that the passing of order of punishment by the appellate authority has prejudiced the respondent. no doubt if an authority is conferred with a power to exercise, it has to be exercised by that authority. but exercising by that authority. but exercising power by a higher authority who has got an appellate jurisdiction, it cannot be said that, it is..........hukkeri, belgaum district, measuring 5 acres 1 gunta. the petitioner himself has approached the asst. director of land records to measure the land and fix the boundaries. the asst. director of land records passed an order contrary to the existing facts and changed the boundary stones to favour the respondents. being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the deputy director of land records, belgaum. in turn the deputy director of land records dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, upholding the order passed by the asst. director of land records dated 23/10/99. the asst. director of land records has taken the measurement on 18/6/1999 and has taken the decision on 23/10/1999. accordingly, the petitioner herein filed a revision before the joint director of land records, belgaum. but without considering the revision petition, the joint director gave an endorsement that the revision is not maintainable under section 139 of the k.l.r. act. therefore, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.3. heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondents-2 to 5 and learned high court government pleader for respondents-6 to 8.4. in spite of granting sufficient time, the respondents-2 to 5 have not filed any objections. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein has rightly challenged the order passed by the asst. director of land records dated 23/10/1999 before the joint director-cum-deputy commissioner. the endorsement annex ure-b issued by the joint director of land records which discloses that revision is not maintainable under section 139 of the karnataka land revenue act, is not correct. the revision is maintainable under section 56 of the karnataka land revenue act. therefore, the joint director of land records, belgaum-8th respondent may be directed to dispose of the revision in accordance with law.5. on the other hand the learned high court govt......

Full Judgment

ORDER

K. Ramanna, J.

1. Though the matter is listed for preliminary hearing in B group, by consent of both the Learned Counsel, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner, seeking writ of certiorari or direction, quashing the order dated nil, July 2003 passed by the 8th Respondent. According to the petitioner, he is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 188 situated at Godageri village, Taluk Hukkeri, Belgaum District, measuring 5 acres 1 gunta. The petitioner himself has approached the Asst. Director of Land Records to measure the Land and fix the boundaries. The Asst. Director of Land Records passed an order contrary to the existing facts and changed the boundary stones to favour the respondents. Being aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records, Belgaum. In turn the Deputy Director of Land Records dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, upholding the order passed by the Asst. Director of Land Records dated 23/10/99. The Asst. Director of Land Records has taken the measurement on 18/6/1999 and has taken the decision on 23/10/1999. Accordingly, the petitioner herein filed a Revision before the Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum. But without considering the revision petition, the Joint Director gave an endorsement that the revision is not maintainable under Section 139 of the K.L.R. Act. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with this writ petition.

3. Heard the arguments of Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Learned Counsel for Respondents-2 to 5 and Learned High Court Government pleader for Respondents-6 to 8.

4. In spite of granting sufficient time, the respondents-2 to 5 have not filed any objections. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein has rightly challenged the order passed by the Asst. Director of Land Records dated 23/10/1999 before the Joint Director-cum-Deputy Commissioner. The endorsement Annex ure-B issued by the Joint Director of Land Records which discloses that revision is not maintainable under Section 139 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, is not correct. The revision is maintainable under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Therefore, the Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum-8th respondent may be directed to dispose of the revision in accordance with Law.

5. On the other hand the Learned High Court Govt. Pleader representing respondents-6 to 8 and the Learned Counsel appearing for respondents-2 to 5 contended that the Joint Director of Land Records is right in not entertaining the revision petition filed by the petitioner. Therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. I have carefully examined the contention and the arguments advanced by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents and perused the records. It is seen that the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal against the order dated 23.10.1999 passed by the Asst. Director of Land Records, Belgaum, in case No. BND: APL: SR: 12:98-99 with regard to fixation of boundaries in respect of the land between block No. 187 and 188 of Godageri Village in Hukkeri taluk. After hearing both parties the Deputy Director of Land Records, Belgaum, dismissed the said case by confirming the order passed by the Assistant Director of Land Records. On an appeal, the Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum, gave an endorsement to the petitioner as per Annexure-B holding that the Deputy Director of the Land Records has finally given his verdict under Section 139 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, therefore there is no scope for any further enquiry, and returned the papers.

7. When an appeal is filed under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the second appeal lies to the Joint Director of Land Records, who is also designated as Deputy Commissioner. In this regard it is relevant to quote Section 56(1)(i) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has clearly explains that:

Special Deputy Commissioner shall be deemed to be not subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner.

Further, Section 56(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act also provides that, if no appeal has been preferred under this chapter, the revisional powers can be exercised. Therefore, it could be said that the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records can be challenged either by way of second appeal or by way of a revision of course, the filing of second appeal is a statutory remedy available to the aggrieved party. Merely because the person who failed to avail of the remedy of second appeal under Section 50 he cannot be denied of availing the remedy under revisional jurisdiction. It would be one of the alternative remedies available to the aggrieved party to choose. In this behalf a reference may be made to a decision in the case of Puttahonnamma (Smt) v. C. Gangadgara Murty and Ors. : [1996]2SCR75 wherein it has been held that:

The Joint Director of Land Records can suo motto correct the legality or propriety of the proceedings of any subordinate officers specially and obviously when it touches the interest of the State.

8. Therefore, the revision petition filed by the petitioner before the Joint Director of Land Records, Hukkeri, against the order passed by the Deputy Director of Land Records, Belgaum, is maintainable and Annexure-B, an endorsement issued by the Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum, is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Joint Director of Land Records, Belgaum, with a direction to secure the presence of both parties and after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing dispose of the case in accordance with law.

9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off.

Till the disposal of the case before the Joint Director of Land Records, Respondents-6 to 8 are restrained from changing the records and maps pertaining to the land of the petitioner in survey No. 188 situated at Godageri village, Taluk Hukkeri, Belgaum District, measuring 5 acres 1 guntas.

Same Court & Year Karnataka · 2006 Same Parties Mayappa vs Mayappa Beerappa Kurbar and ors. Same Subject Property Same Judge K. Ramanna, J. Acts & Sections Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Sections 49, 50, 56, 56(1)...

Property