G. Shivamma Vs. K.L. Somashekar and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- karnataka village offices (abolition) act (14 of 1961 section 5(4): [ram mohan reddy,j] sale of certain immovable property which was subject-matter of re-grant under karnataka village offices abolition act petitioners were respondents 1 and 2 before special deputy commissioner - special deputy commissioner held that petition are maintainable and he has jurisdiction to entertain same held, the special deputy commissioner is bound by rule of law and cannot feign ignorance. in exercise of quasi-judicial power, the deputy commissioner is bound to take notice of the notification issued by the state government as well as understand the law as it stands. the authority having specifically adverted to the notification dated 29.8.1979 of the state government investing a jurisdiction in the tahsildar to perform the function of the deputy commissioner under the act, yet decided to entertain the petition on the premise that the proceeding made by the assistant commissioner, the petition deserves to be dealt with by the higher authority. - in exercise of quasi-judicial power, the deputy commissioner is bound to take notice of the notification issued by the state government as well as..........of regrant under the karnataka village offices abolition act, 1961 (for short, 'the act'), by his uncles preferred a petition under sub-section (4) of section 5 of the act to the special deputy commissioner, bangalore district, to declare transfer of land as null and void and forfeit the same and to vest in the state government. in the said proceeding, the petitioners were arraigned as respondents 1 and 2 respectively, whence the special deputy commissioner registered the petition as misc. (a) c.r. 3 of 2006-07 passed an order dated 1-6-2009 annexure-a holding that the petition was maintainable and he had the jurisdiction to entertain the same. hence, these petitions.3. the petitioner having brought to the notice of the special deputy commissioner, the notification bearing no. rd 415 mv 79 issued by the state government, in exercise of powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the act and in supersession of the earlier notification dated 16-8-1967, appointing tahsildars of the taluks to perform functions and exercise the powers of the deputy commissioner under the act, in respect of the areas within their jurisdiction, nevertheless, the.....

Judgment:

ORDER

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.

1. These petitions though listed for orders, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, are finally heard and disposed off by this order.

2. One K.L. Somashekhar, arraigned as respondent in these petitions, aggrieved by the sale of certain immoveable property which was subject-matter of regrant under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act'), by his uncles preferred a petition under Sub-section (4) of Section 5 of the Act to the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, to declare transfer of land as null and void and forfeit the same and to vest in the State Government. In the said proceeding, the petitioners were arraigned as respondents 1 and 2 respectively, whence the Special Deputy Commissioner registered the petition as Misc. (A) C.R. 3 of 2006-07 passed an order dated 1-6-2009 Annexure-A holding that the petition was maintainable and he had the jurisdiction to entertain the same. Hence, these petitions.

3. The petitioner having brought to the notice of the Special Deputy Commissioner, the notification bearing No. RD 415 MV 79 issued by the State Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the Act and in supersession of the earlier notification dated 16-8-1967, appointing Tahsildars of the taluks to perform functions and exercise the powers of the Deputy Commissioner under the Act, in respect of the areas within their jurisdiction, nevertheless, the Special Deputy Commissioner held thus:

Though as at now the powers under Section 5 of the Act are vested with the jurisdictional Tahsildar, since the original regrant order was made by the Assistant Commissioner, the matter has to be dealt by the higher authority. Hence, since, it is held that this petition/appeal is maintainable before this authority.

4. The Special Deputy Commissioner is bound by rule of law and cannot feign ignorance. In exercise of quasi-judicial power, the Deputy Commissioner is bound to take notice of the notification issued by the State Government as well as understand the law as it stands. The authority having specifically adverted to the notification dated 29-8-1979 of the State Government investing a jurisdiction in the Tahsildar to perform the function of the Deputy Commissioner under the Act, yet decided to entertain the petition on the premise that the proceeding made by the Assistant Commissioner, the petition deserves to be dealt with by the higher authority.

5. The finding of the Special Deputy Commissioner that he being the higher authority has the jurisdiction to deal with the matter is perverse.

The writ petitions are allowed. The order dated 1-6-2009 Annexure-A is quashed. The Special Deputy Commissioner is directed to forthwith forward the representation to the Tahsildar of the taluks to consider the same and to pass orders strictly in accordance with law.