SRIKANTA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MADHYA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has raised the challenge to the order, dated 9-3-2009 (Annexure-L) passed by the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No. 45 of 2006.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner claims to be in unauthorised occupation and cultivation of the land measuring 4 acres at Sy. No. 30 of the Tharanigere Village. He has made the application for the regularisation of his unauthorised occupation. Complaining of the inaction by the Committee for regularisation of unauthorized occupation, the petitioner and two others filed W.P. Nos. 4233 to 4235 of 2004. This Court, by its order, dated 5-2-2004 disposed of the petition to consider the petitioner's said application, if he has indeed made one such application. Till now, no orders are passed on the petitioner's application for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation; nor have the authorities issued any endorsement to the effect that the petitioner has not made any application for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation. When thus stood the state of affairs, the third respondent made an application to the Tahsildar seeking the change of katha in his favour in respect of the portion of land - 3 acres 20 guntas at Sy. No. 30. The third respondent's claim is based on the grant records. The Tahsildar did not issue the sought katha, as there is no tallying of the records. The Tahsildar's endorsement also says that the Tahsildar had suspected the very genuineness of the Saguvali Chit. The third respondent filed R.P. No. 22 of 2004 before the Deputy Commissioner challenging the Tahsildar's refusal to issue the katha to him. The Deputy Commissioner allowed the revision petition setting aside the Tahsildar's endorsement, dated 9-2-2004 and further directed the Tahsildar to verify the original grant records, etc. and process the third respondent's request. Once again, the Tahsildar vide endorsements, dated 28-8-2004 and 28-6-2006 deferred the third respondent's consideration for the issuance of the katha on the ground of the pendency of the petitioner's application for the regularisation of unauthorised occupation of the same land. The third respondent again approached the Deputy Commissioner by filing R.P. No. 45 of 2006. The Deputy Commissioner set aside the endorsement, dated 28-6-2006 and directed the Tahsildar to verify the revenue records and take a decision on the third respondent's application, in accordance with law. It is this order, which is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) Sri K.S. Narayana Swamy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent is not justified in filing the revision petition without availing of the interlayer remedy of filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. His second grievance is that the impugned order is passed without notice to the petitioner, although the endorsement, which was the subject-matter of the revision petition before the Deputy Commissioner contained the name of the petitioner.