GANGADHARA MURTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has sought to quash the order (Annexures- K, C and B) dated 1-1-1992, 16-9-1991 and 26-6-1991 passed by respondents 2 to 4 herein respectively, for the reasons stated therein.

(2.) A few facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Petition are as follows:- The petitioner is the owner of a part of an agricultural land bearing Sy.No. 47 of Srigandhadakavalu village, Yeshawantapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk. There was a partition amongst the members of his family and the ancestors of respondent-7 as disclosed in detail in Revision Petition No. 191 of 1991 presented by the petitioner before the Tribunal, respondent-2 herein. It has come on record that subsequent to the partition, respondent-7 got the land measured and phoded as 47/1A and 47/1B by the Assistant Director of Land Records and Survey Settlement, without notice to the petitioner and while doing so, the land measuring 3 acres 20 guntas in the possession of the petitioner for the last 40 years was included to the portion of respondent-7 and measured. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Director of Land Records, respondent-5 herein, for cancelling the Durasth of the land made by the Asst. Director of Land Records. Respondent-5, after enquiry, allowed the appeal and directed the Assistant Director of Land Records to hold a detailed enquiry into the matter and to pass an appropriate order after notice to all the parties including the petitioner. That order was challenged by respondent-7 before the Joint Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records, respondent-5 herein, who, by his order (Annexure-B) dated 26th June 1991 in No. J.D.L.R. Revision Petition No. 6 of 1989-90, set aside the order (Annexure-A) made by the Deputy Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records with a direction to the Assistant Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records to give effect to the orders MPR. 33/86-87 and ADL BN. SMPR. 139/86-87 dividing Sy.No. 47 as 47/1A and 47/1B .

(3.) SRI B.M. Krishna Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner, having taken us through the relevant documents and the orders impugned herein, argued that the Division Bench of the Tribunal was in error in having dismissed the revision petition of the petitioner as not maintainable inspite of the decision of the Full Bench of the same Tribunal rendered earlier that more than one revision was maintainable and that regard being had to the provisions of Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (the Act for short), the revision petition as brought by the petitioner was maintainable. Therefore, the conclusion reached by the Tribunal in the order impugned herein that the revision petition was not maintainable was illegal and could not be sustained in law.