Allowed

Mohammad Idris and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Karnataka HC25 Nov 2024WP/200873/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Landowners challenged a Deputy Commissioner's suo moto revision order reducing their surveyed land extent nearly 30 years after the original records. Holding the revision barred by Section 56(3)'s time limits and by delay/laches, the High Court quashed the revisional order.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 13.02.2017 of the Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.2/2015-16 quashed.

Mohammad Idris and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

��

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 200873 OF 2017 (KLR-RR/SUR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MOHAMMAD IDRI S/O MOHAMMAD AYUB AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.

¶10

MOHAMMAD AWEZ S/O MOHAMMAD AYUB

¶11

AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶12

MOHAMMAD UMER S/OMOHAMMAD ILLIYAS AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶13

Digitally signed by LUCYGRACE Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

MOHAMMAD KHAISER S/O MOHAMMAD ILLIYAS AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS.

¶15

OCC: AGRICULTURE & BUSINESS R/O HUSSAIN GARDEN KALABURAGI.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI. AMEET KUMAR DESHPANDE, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GANESH.S. KALBURGI, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶20

¶21

��

¶22

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KALABURAGI-585 102.

¶23

THE TAHSILDAR KALABURAGI-585 102.

¶24

THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS KALABURAGI-585 102.

¶25

THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS KALABURAGI-585 102

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT. MAYA.T.R, HCGP)

¶28

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED-13.02.2017 BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KALABURAGI IN FILE NO. TANTRIK/REVISION/ 02-2015-16, VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶29

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

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR)

¶33

In this petition, the petitioners seek the following reliefs:

¶34

“(a) Quash the order dated: 13.02.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Kalaburagi in file No.Sankhye:Thanthrika:Revision:02:2015-16, vide Annexure-F.

¶35

(b) Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

¶36

��

¶37

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned

¶39

HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.6, 9 and 10(a to c) and perused the material on record.

¶40

In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners claim to be the owners in possession and enjoyment of the subject land bearing Sy.No.6/3 measuring 3 acres 36 guntas of Heerapur Village, Kalaburagi District and the revenue records are said to be standing in the name of the petitioners. It is contended that the survey records were also made out in the name of the petitioners in the year 1987-88 by the Survey Authorities. It is the grievance of the petitioners that after lapse of almost 30 years, respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner initiated suo moto revision proceedings under Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short “the said Act of 1964”) in the year 2015 in Revision Petition No.2/2015-16, which culminated in the impugned order, whereby the extent of land in Sy.No.6/3 was reduced from 3 acres 36 guntas to 2 acres 30 guntas. Aggrieved by the impugned order

¶41

¶42

��

¶43

at Annexure-F dated 13.02.2017 passed by respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners are before this Court by way of the present petition putting forth various contentions and inter alia contending that having regard to the fact that the survey authorities had made out the survey records in the name of the petitioners in the year 1986-87, the impugned revisional proceedings which culminated in the impugned order after lapse of almost 30 years was barred by inordinate delay and latches and hit by doctrine/principle of “reasonable time” as held by the Apex Court in the cases of Chhedi Lal Yadav & Others Vs. Hari Krishna Yadav (D) thr. Lrs and Others – (2018) 12 SCC 527, Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka and another – (2020) 14 SCC 232 and Sri. Vivek M. Hinduja and others Vs. M. Ashwatha and others – (2020) 14 SCC 228 and as such, the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

¶44

Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 5- State would support the impugned order and submits that there is no merit in the petition and that the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶45

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that it is an undisputed fact and a matter on record that

¶46

¶47

��

¶48

the impugned proceedings were initiated by the Deputy Commissioner in the year 2015 in suo moto Revision Petition No.2/2015-16 against the orders passed by the Revisional Authorities in the year 1986-87 almost after lapse of 30 years, are is hit by doctrine/principle of “reasonable time” as held by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments. In addition thereto, it would be apposite to refer to Section 56 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which reads as under:

¶49

“ 56. Power of Revision .—(1) The Tribunal, any Revenue

¶50

Officer not inferior in rank to an Assistant Commissioner, and any Survey Officer not inferior in rank to a 1 [Deputy Director of Land Records]1 or an Assistant Settlement Officer in their respective departments, may call for and examine the record of any inquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate officer under this Act 1 [or under section 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908)]1 for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case may be, as to the legality or propriety of the proceedings of such officer.

¶51

(i) Special Deputy Commissioner shall be deemed to be not subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner; and

¶52

(ii) all revenue officers shall be deemed to be subordinate to the Tribunal.

¶53

(2) If, in any case, it shall appear to the Tribunal 1 [x x x]1 or to such officer aforesaid, that any decision or order or proceedings so called for should be modified, annulled, or

¶54

¶55

��

¶56

reversed, the Tribunal 1 [x x x]1 or such officer may pass such order as may be deemed fit:

¶57

Provided that no order shall be modified, annulled, or reversed unless notice has been served on the parties interested and opportunity given to them of being heard.

¶58

(3) No application for revision under this section and no power of revision on such application shall be exercised against any order in respect of which an appeal under this Chapter has been preferred and no application for revision shall be entertained unless such application is presented within a period of four months from the date of such order: Provided that any Revenue Officer or Survey Officer referred to in sub-section (1) may exercise power under this section in respect of any order against which no appeal has been preferred under this Chapter, at any time within three years from the date of the order sought to be revised.

¶59

Provided that any Revenue Officer or Survey Officer referred to in sub-section (1) may exercise power under this section in respect of any order against which no appeal has been preferred under this Chapter, at any time within three years from the date of the order sought to be revised.”

¶60

In the instant case, it is an undisputed fact that respondent No.2 – the Deputy commissioner initiated suo moto revision proceedings under Section 56 of the said Act of 1964. In this context, a perusal of Sub-section (3) of Section 56 is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the revisional proceedings are to be

¶61

��

¶62

¶63

filed within a period of four months from the date of such order and a maximum upper limit of three years is granted for the purpose of initiating revision proceedings by the Deputy Commissioner. As stated supra, the impugned proceedings having been initiated in the year 2015 against the orders of the year 1986-87, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned proceedings are not only barred by Section 56(3) of the said Act of 1964, but also barred by the principle of “reasonable time” as held in the aforesaid judgments and consequently, the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 – the Deputy Commissioner deserves to be quashed.

¶64

In so far as the contentions urged on behalf of the respondents-State that availability of equally efficacious and alternative remedy by way of an appeal would lie before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section 57 of the said Act of 1964 is concerned, in the light of the findings recorded by me herein before that the impugned proceedings are barred by not only Sub-section (3) Section 56, but also by the doctrine/principle of “reasonable time” and consequently, are without jurisdiction or authority of law, mere availability of an alternative remedy or

¶65

��

¶66

¶67

preferring an appeal before the KAT under Section 57 of the said Act of 1964 cannot be made a basis to come to the conclusion that this Court cannot exercise its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and as such, this contention urged by the respondents-State cannot be accepted.

¶68

In the result, I pass the following:

¶69

ORDER

¶70

(i) The Writ Petition is hereby allowed.

¶71

(ii) The impugned order at Annexure-F dated 13.02.2017 is hereby quashed.

¶72

BMC: List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22

Mohammad Idris and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Idris and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangamma and Anr. Vs the Secretary and Ors.

Sunil S/O Manohar Kulkarni Vs the Deputy Commissioner and Ors.

Satyabhama Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Bhaganna and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Ors.

Shankar Rao S/O Shivalingapp Minajagi Vs Union of India Reptd Its Secretary and Ors.

Sajid and Anr. Vs Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd.