Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri N. Chandra Reddy, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division (respondent No.2). The impugned order sought to take up Appeal No.67/2015-16 for reconsideration based on a representation and application filed by respondent No.4, Shankar Reddy. The background facts are that the Tahasildar had effected Mutation Register No.23/1997-98 in respect of 30 guntas of land at Sy.No.98/11 of Rayasandra Village, and the mutation entry and khatha were made in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioner challenged this mutation by way of an appeal in 2015 under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (KLR Act). The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 19.12.2015, found that respondent No.4 had not purchased the land and set aside the mutation entry, directing restoration of entries as they stood prior to the mutation. Subsequently, respondent No.4 made a representation and application to the Assistant Commissioner, who then passed the impugned order dated 14.03.2016 taking up the appeal for reconsideration. The petitioner contended that the Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review or reconsider his own order, as the KLR Act does not confer any power of review. The respondents argued that the Assistant Commissioner could reconsider the matter. The court examined the provisions of the KLR Act, particularly Section 136(2) and Section 136(3), and noted that the Act provides for an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner and a further revision to the Deputy Commissioner, but does not grant any power of review to the Assistant Commissioner. The court held that once the Assistant Commissioner passed the order on 19.12.2015, the matter attained finality subject to revision under Section 136(3). The Assistant Commissioner had no jurisdiction to take up the same appeal for reconsideration. The impugned order dated 14.03.2016 was therefore quashed as being without jurisdiction. The writ petition was allowed.
Headnote
A) Land Revenue - Mutation Entry - Review of Appellate Order - Section 136(2) and 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - The Assistant Commissioner, after deciding an appeal under Section 136(2) and setting aside a mutation entry, cannot subsequently take up the same appeal for reconsideration based on a representation by a party. The Act does not confer any power of review on the Assistant Commissioner. The order dated 14.03.2016 was quashed as without jurisdiction. (Paras 1-5)
B) Land Revenue - Finality of Orders - Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 - Once the Assistant Commissioner passes an order in appeal under Section 136(2), the matter attains finality subject to further revision under Section 136(3). The Assistant Commissioner cannot reopen the proceedings on his own motion or on application. (Paras 3-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to review or reconsider his own order passed in an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, based on a representation or application of a party.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, in R.A.(A)67/2015-16 is quashed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review
- Reconsideration
- Jurisdiction
- Finality of Orders
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act
- 1964
- Section 136(2)
- Section 136(3)
- Writ Jurisdiction
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India
Case Details
2016 LawText (KAR) (06) 24
Writ Petition No.20882 of 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR)
Justice Ashok B. Hinchigeri
Sri D.P. Mahesh (for petitioner), Sri A.G. Shivanna, AAG and Sri T.L. Kiran Kumar, AGA (for respondents 1-3), Sri G.D. Aswathanarayana (for respondent 4)
The State of Karnataka, The Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore South Sub-Division, The Special Tahasildar, Anekal Taluk, Shankar Reddy @ Shankarnarayana @ Shankarappa
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Assistant Commissioner taking up an appeal for reconsideration.
Remedy Sought
Quashing of the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in R.A.(A)67/2015-16.
Filing Reason
The Assistant Commissioner, after deciding an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, set aside a mutation entry on 19.12.2015, but later passed an order on 14.03.2016 taking up the same appeal for reconsideration based on a representation by respondent No.4, which the petitioner contended was without jurisdiction.
Previous Decisions
The Assistant Commissioner had earlier allowed the petitioner's appeal on 19.12.2015, setting aside the mutation entry in favour of respondent No.4 and directing restoration of prior entries.
Issues
Whether the Assistant Commissioner has the jurisdiction to review or reconsider his own order passed in an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.
Whether the impugned order dated 14.03.2016 is arbitrary, illegal, and without authority of law.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Assistant Commissioner had no power of review under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, and the order taking up the appeal for reconsideration was without jurisdiction.
The respondents contended that the Assistant Commissioner could reconsider the matter based on the representation of respondent No.4.
Ratio Decidendi
The Assistant Commissioner, after deciding an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, has no jurisdiction to review or reconsider his own order. The Act does not confer any power of review on the Assistant Commissioner. Once the order is passed, the matter attains finality subject to revision under Section 136(3). Any order taking up the appeal for reconsideration is without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed.
Judgment Excerpts
The Assistant Commissioner has no power of review. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act does not confer any power of review on the Assistant Commissioner.
Once the Assistant Commissioner passes the order on 19.12.2015, the matter attains finality subject to the revision under Section 136(3) of the KLR Act.
The impugned order dated 14.03.2016 is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.
Procedural History
The Tahasildar effected M.R.No.23/1997-98 in respect of land at Sy.No.98/11 of Rayasandra Village, making mutation entry and khatha in favour of respondent No.4. The petitioner challenged this mutation by way of an appeal in 2015 under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Assistant Commissioner, by order dated 19.12.2015, allowed the appeal, set aside the mutation entry, and directed restoration of prior entries. Subsequently, respondent No.4 made a representation and application, and the Assistant Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 14.03.2016 taking up the appeal for reconsideration. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964: Section 136(2), Section 136(3)
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
