SIDDESHWAR YUVAK MANDAL Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS
LAWS(KAR)-1981-8-61
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Decided on August 04,1981

Siddeshwar Yuvak Mandal Appellant
VERSUS
State of Karnataka And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

N.D. Venkatesh, J. - (1.) This petition, filed under Articles 226 and 2Z7 of the Constitution of India, is directed against an order of the Special Deputy Commissioner, Belgaum, d. to i 22-4-1980 Annexute-E (in case NQ. RB. LND. 12/79 on his file). It is preferred by an Association of young men called Siddeswar Yuvak Mandal, village Siddasamudra, Taluka B iilhongal, Belgaum District (hereinafter referred to as the Yuvak Mandal). The Yuvak Mandal apd Fakiragouda Sidjanagouda Patil (respondent-4 herein) (Sri ' Patil) were rival. claimants for the grant of eksal lease of an agricultural land comprised in Sy. No. 4,'8 of village Siddasamudra by the Revenue Department. By his order dated 14-6-1979, Annexure-D (in case No. LAQ SR. 699 on his file) the Tahsildar Bailhongal (respondent-3) leased the said land in Eksal basis to the Yuvak Mandal. Sri Patil questioned the correctness of this order before the Special Deputy Commissioner. After hearing the parties the Special Deputy Commissioner passed the impugned order (Annexure-E) allowing the appeal by setting aside the order of the Tahsildar.
(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Yuvak Mandal submitted that under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (the Act) the appeal against the order of the Tahsildar lies only to the Assistant Commissioner and not to the Deputy Commissioner and, therefore, the proceeding before the Special Deputy 'Commissioner culminating in the impugned order was vitiated, the same having been initiated in a court lacking in inherent jurisdiction in law to entertain the said appeal.
(3.) On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for Sri Patil, while supporting the impugned order, submitted that, though it was . true under the Act an appeal against the order of the Tahsildar lies to the Assistant Commissioner but not straightaway to the Deputy Commissioner, the Deputy Commissioner has inherent powers to deal with an, appeal of this nature and the order having been passed in exercise of his inherent powers cannot be characterised as unsustainable in law.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.