P.M. IBRAHIM AND MR. RAHMAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION AND THE TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these writ petitions, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 24 -7 -2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chikkamagalur District in Case No. RP 12/2011 -12 dismissing the revision petition holding that the same is not maintainable. The petitioner is an agriculturist owning 1 -00 acre of land in Sy. No. 23/2 of Kadambar village, Kasaragodu Taluk. The petitioner and his family members are also agriculturists. The petitioner purchased 0.29 guntas of land in re -Survey No. 50/1 of Huruvanahalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Kadur Taluk and 0.11 guntas of land in Sy. No. 50/2 of the same village as per the registered sale deed dated 14 -07 -2008. At the time of registration of the sale deed, the Registering Authority verified whether the petitioner is an agriculturist or not. On production of necessary documents, after being satisfied that the petitioner is an agriculturist by profession, registered the document. However, the Tahsildar refused to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any documents to show that he is an agriculturist by profession. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahsildar, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (for short 'the Act') before the Assistant Commissioner in R.A. No. 97/2009 -10. The Assistant Commissioner without examining the matter, rejected the appeal on the ground that issue comes under the Karnataka Land Reforms Act. No document has been produced to show that the petitioner is an agriculturist by profession. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred a revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision petition solely on the ground that the same is not maintainable. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petitions.

(2.) SRI . K. Rama Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the Authorities below are contrary to law. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tahsildar rejecting to mutate the name of the petitioner in the revenue records, the petitioner had preferred an appeal under Section 136(2) of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant Commissioner rejected the appeal without considering the case pleaded by the petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner without examining the matter, dismissed the revision petition filed by the petitioner solely on the ground that revision petition under Section 136(3) of the Act is not maintainable. The order passed by the authorities below are contrary to law. He further submits that the issue is with regard to mutation of name of the petitioner insofar as the land purchased by him and sought for setting aside the same.

(3.) I have carefully considered the arguments addressed by the parties.