ORDER
V.G. Sabhahit, J.
1. This Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed being aggrieved by the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 30/08/2000 in Appeal No. 122/1999 as per Annexure 'E' and the order passed by the Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records in Karnataka, dated 30/11/1998 in Appeal No. 37/1996-1997 as per Annexure 'D' wherein an order has been passed to delete the names of Bylappa, son of Byranna and Channigappa, son of Dodda Channarayappa from the second re-classification prathi book dated 13/02/1960 in respect of Sy.No. 51 of Kuntanahalli Village.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are the sons of Channigappa. The land measuring 11 acres 27 guntas in Sy.No. 51 of Kuntanahalli Village, belongs to Sri. Byranna, son of Sri. Giddappa of Kadanur Village Doddaballapur Taluk, Bangalore Rural District, and the names of Bylappa, son of Byranna and Channigappa, son of Doddachannarayappa were entered as joint owners of the said land. However, the fourth respondent in the writ petition B-Ramakrishnaiah, son of Bylappa filed an application before the Assistant Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records to remove the name of Channigappa. No notices were issued to the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of Channigapppa, who died in the year 1970 and the Deputy Director-respondent No. 3 passed an order on 30/09/1996 allowing the application filed by the fourth respondent and ordered deletion of the name of Channigappa. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal numbered as Appeal No. 37/1996-97 before the Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records-second respondent in the Writ Petition. Respondent No. 4 raised objections regarding the maintainability of the appeal and the Director of survey Settlement and Land Records-second respondent by order dated 30/11/1998 held that appeal was not maintainable. However, he treated it as a revision under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and held that the land had been resumed for non payment of land revenue and the application for restoration was pending, even as per the averment made in the appeal memo before the Director, and further on verification of the original records, found that the names of Channigappa and Bylappa son of Byranna had been wrongly entered in the re-survey record and ordered deletion of both the names. Being aggrieved by the said order, Appeal 122/1999 was filed before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by order dated 30/08/2000 held that the appeal is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the appeal as not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by respondents 2 and 3, the petitioners have preferred this Writ Petition.
3. Respondents 1 to 3 filed statement of objections justifying the orders passed.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the contentions urged, the points that arise for determination are:
1. whether the orders passed by respondents 2 and 3 are justified and call for interference in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India? and
2. What order?
and I answer the above points for determination as follows:
1.- In the affirmative and as per the final order; and
2.- as per the final order for the following reasons:
5. It is clear from the perusal of the material on record that it is not disputed that name of Channigappa and Bylappa has been entered in the settlement record as 'Kartha' (occupants). It is also clear from the perusal of the material on record, the averments made in the writ petition and the appeal memo before the Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records that the said land was resumed for non-payment of land revenue and the application for restoration is pending consideration. It is clear from the perusal of the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal that the said order is justified as no appeal would lie against the order passed in revision as the Director-second respondent treated the appeal as revision and has passed the order and wherefore no appeal would lie against revision. Wherefore, the order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal as not maintainable is justified and the said finding is unassailable. Further, it is clear from the perusal of the order passed by the Director-second respondent that the said order suffers from error and illegality. It is clear from the perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director that an application was filed by the fourth respondent to delete the name of Channigappa and the Deputy Director-third respondent passed an order dated 30/09/1996 ordering deletion of the name of Channigappa. However, in appeal which was treated as revision, the second respondent has ordered deletion of the names of both Channigappa and Bylappa from the second re-classification prathi book dated 13/02/1960 in respect of Sy.No. 51 of Kuntanahalli Village and the reasoning given to arrive at the said finding is erroneous as it is clear that merely because son of the petitioner-Shivashankariah obtained the certified copy would not necessarily mean that ha had notice of proceeding and when an application was filed by the fourth respondent to delete the name of Channigappa, the Deputy Director ought to have passed an order after notifying the concerned party and it is the specific contention of the petitioners that they were not notified in the proceeding before the Deputy Director and wherefore the second respondent-Director in the revision proceeding has proceeded on the basis that since certified copy had been obtained, they had Knowledge of proceedings. It is well settled that when an application is filed for deleting the name of a person from the revenue record, it is necessary to notify the concerned person and in the present case, the fourth respondent is the son of Bylappa-brother-in-law of Channigappa and Channigappa died in the year about 1970, it is clear that no order could be passed without notifying the legal representatives of Channigappa namely the petitioners. Even otherwise, it is clear that the order passed by the third respondent cannot be sustained as he has proceeded to verify the original records and had directed deletion of the names of both Channigappa and Bylappa which was hot the prayer in the application. Under the circumstances, it is clear that the orders passed by the second and third respondent is clearly erroneous and cannot be sustained and the same are liable to be set aside and the Director in revision ought to have get aside the order passed by the Deputy Director and remitted the matter to the Deputy Director for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law after notifying the petitioners, who are the legal representatives of Channigappa and thereafter to pass orders in accordance with law.
6. Wherefore, it is clear that the orders passed by the third respondent and the second respondent cannot at all be sustained and accordingly, the order passed by the second respondent confirming the order passed by the third respondent is also liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the third respondent-Deputy Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records with a direction to dispose of the application filed by the fourth respondent after notifying the petitioners who are the legal representatives of Channigappa and thereafter to pass orders in accordance with law.
7. Accordingly, I answer the points for determination and pass the following order:
8. The writ Petition is allowed. The order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal dated 30/08/2000 in Appeal No. 122/1999 holding that the appeal is not maintainable is confirmed. The order passed by the second respondent-Director of survey settlement and Land Records, dated 30/11/1998 as per Annexure 'D' ordering deletion of the names of Channigappa and Bylappa in the second re-classification prathi book dated 13/02/1960 in respect of Sy.No. 51 of Kuntanahalli is set aside. The order passed by the third respondent-Deputy Director of survey settlement and Land Records dated 30/09/1996 as per Annexure 'B' is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records-third respondent, Bangalore, with a direction to dispose of the application filed by the fourth respondent in accordance with law after notifying the petitioners who are the legal representatives of Channigappa and to dispose of the said application in accordance with law. All the contentions are kept open to be urged before the third respondent.