Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shri Rukmanna S/o Shankar Zunjwadkar, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 29.09.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi (first respondent) in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commissioner's order was made in proceedings bearing No. RB/RTA-231/2016-2017. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without affording him an opportunity of hearing and without the Deputy Commissioner recording any satisfaction that there existed a dispute as to title or interest in the land, which is a prerequisite for exercising power under Section 136(3). The respondents included the Deputy Commissioner, Assistant Commissioner, Tahasildar, and private respondents (Shri Maruti S/o Mallappa Madar and others). The High Court, after hearing the parties, found that the Deputy Commissioner had not recorded any jurisdictional satisfaction regarding the existence of a dispute as to title or interest in the land. The court held that the power under Section 136(3) is a quasi-judicial power and can be exercised only after recording satisfaction that there is a dispute. Additionally, the order was passed without notice to the petitioner, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. The court directed that the Deputy Commissioner shall first record satisfaction as to whether there exists a dispute as to title or interest in the land, and if so, proceed in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Section 136(3) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Jurisdictional Satisfaction - Deputy Commissioner must record satisfaction that there is a dispute as to title or interest in land before invoking suo motu power - Failure to record such satisfaction renders order without jurisdiction (Paras 4-6). B) Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Section 136(3) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Order passed without notice to the person likely to be affected is violative of principles of natural justice - Deputy Commissioner's order set aside (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Commissioner's order under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is sustainable when passed without recording jurisdictional satisfaction and without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned order dated 29.09.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Belagavi, and remitted the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. The Deputy Commissioner shall first record satisfaction as to whether there exists a dispute as to title or interest in the land, and if so, proceed in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- opportunity of hearing
- jurisdictional satisfaction
- Section 136(3) Karnataka Land Revenue Act
- 1964
- writ of certiorari
