Dismissed

Smt. Nanjamma, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Sept 2024RP/277/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition filed by private respondents against a writ disposal that relegated parties to the competent Tribunal. Construing Section 49(g) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the court held that appeals against a Joint Director of Land Records order lie to the Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records; no error apparent on the face of the record. Review petition dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Nanjamma, Vs the State of Karnataka — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:38788 RP No. 277 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REVIEW PETITION NO. 277 OF 2024

¶6

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.23398 OF 2021 (KLR-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. NANJAMMA W/O LATE P. ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS

¶10

SMT. MANJULA N.E D/O LATE P. ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶11

N.E. RAJESHWARI D/O LATE P. ERAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

ALL RESIDENT OF NAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 066

¶14

ALL ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR GPA HOLDER NARAYANAREDDY S/O NARAYANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O NAGONDAHALLI VILLAGE K.R.PURAM HOBLI BANGALORE EAST TALUK BENGALURU-560 066

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. GOWTHAMDEV C. ULLAL, ADVOCATE)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:38788 RP No. 277 of 2024

¶19

AND:

¶20

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE VIKASA SOUDHA BENGAULURU-560 001

¶21

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT DC OFFICE, K.G.ROAD BANGALORE-560 009

¶22

THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT 4^TH FLOOR, DC OFFICE BUILDING BANGALORE-560 009

¶23

THE ASST. DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS BANGALORE EAST TALUK TALUK OFFICE, K.R. PURAM BANGALORE-560 036

¶24

THE TAHASILDHAR BANGALORE EAST TALUK TALUK OFFICE, K.R.PURAM BANGALORE-560 036

¶25

THE TALUK SURVIVOR BANGALORE EAST TALUK TALUK OFFICE, K.R.PURAM BANGALORE-560 036

¶26

SMT. K. POORNIMA W/O D.T. SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 11, KSHEMYADHATRI NILAYA THIPPAIAH LAYOUT DEVASANDRA

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:38788 RP No. 277 of 2024

¶29

K.R.PURAM BANGALORE-560 036

¶30

…RESPONDENTS

¶31

(BY SRI. HANUMANTHRAY LAGALI, AGA FOR R1 TO R6; SRI. MANMOHAN P.N, ADVOCATE FOR R7)

¶32

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 OF CPC R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE R/W ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REVIEW ITS ORDER DATED 21.06.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.23398/2021, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶33

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶34

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶35

ORAL ORDER

¶36

This review petition is filed by private respondents in WP No.23398/2021 disposed on 21.06.2024 relegating the parties to approach the competent Tribunal.

¶37

Heard Sri Gowthamdev C.Ullal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Hanamanthray Lagali, AGA for Respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Sri Manmohan P.N., learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.7.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:38788 RP No. 277 of 2024

¶40

It is submitted by the learned counsel

¶41

appearing for the petitioners Sri Gowthamdev C.Ullal that order dated 21.06.2024 in WP No.23398/2021 is contrary to law as the private respondents in the Writ Petition had challenged the order dated 02.08.2017 passed by the Joint Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Urban District, before the Deputy Commissioner's office, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru.

¶42

He also refers to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Puttahonnamma vs. C.Gangadhara Murthy and others¹ and contended that the Deputy Commissioner is having the Revisional Jurisdiction to be exercised against the order passed by the Joint Director of Land Records, Bengaluru Urban District.

¶43

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.7 submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and accordingly, he refers to Sec.49(g) of the

¶44

1 1996 (8) SCC 483

¶45

¶46

NC: 2024:KHC:38788 RP No. 277 of 2024

¶47

Karnataka Land Revenue Act,1964 and submitted that the impugned order in the writ petition is just and proper and does not call for any interference in this Review Petition.

¶48

Having taken note of the submission made by

¶49

the learned counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 1^st June 2019 was challenged in Writ Petition No.23398/2021 and the said order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, Bengaluru against the order passed by the Joint Director

¶50

of Land Records, Bengaluru Urban District, of Bengaluru in No.43/2017-18 dated 02.08.2017.

¶51

Section 49(g) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 which reads as under:

¶52

" 49. Appeals from original orders .—Save as otherwise expressly provided, an appeal shall lie from every original order passed under this Act or the rules made thereunder, 1 [and from every order made in exercise of the powers conferred by section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908)]1 ,— 1. Inserted by Act 33 of 1975 w.e.f. 10.7.1975. 1964: KAR. ACT 12] Land Revenue 475 (a) if such an order is passed by a Revenue Officer

¶53

¶54

NC: 2024:KHC:38788 RP No. 277 of 2024

¶55

subordinate to the Assistant Commissioner, 1 [whether or not invested 2 [or delegated]2 with the powers of the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner]1 to the Assistant Commissioner; 1. Inserted by Act 33 of 1975 w.e.f. 10.7.1975. 2. Inserted by Act 22 of 1976 w.e.f. 24.12.1975

¶56

b. xxxxx

¶57

c. xxxxx

¶58

d. xxxxx

¶59

e .xxxxx f. xxxxxx

¶60

(g) if such an order is passed by the 1 [Joint Director of Land Records or Joint Director for Settlement]1, to the Director of Survey, Settlement and Land Records;"

¶61

The language employed in Section 49(g)

¶62

provides that against the order of Joint Director of Land Records, the remedy available for the aggrieved party is to approach the Director of Survey Settlement and Land Records. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the Review Petition as the language employed in the Act is unambiguous. The judgment referred to by the petitioner cannot be made applicable to the facts on hand.

¶63