BETTAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition filed seeking writ of certiorari for quashing the orders of second Respondent - Deputy Commissioner passed at Annexure 'h'.

(2.) THE petitioner claiming to be in unauthorised cultivation of the land bearing survey number 63 measuring 2 acres 20 guntas of honaganahalli village, Mandya Taiuk, made an application for regularisation before the Committee, which is the 6th Respondent. The Committee did not recommend the grant in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Tahsildar rejected the request for regularisation, on the ground that, the land in question is already granted in favour of the 7th Respondent. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, who allowed the appeal as per the orders at Annexure 'e' finding that the land claimed by the petitioner is totally different from the one granted in favour of the 7th Respondent. It came to the turn to the 7th Respondent to challenge the order of the Assistant Commissioner before the Deputy commissioner, who under order at Annexure 'h' remitted the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, for reconsideration and disposal in accordance with law, finding that there are rival claim between the petitioner and the 7th Respondent in respect of the same land and 7th Respondent is not made a party in the proceedings before the assistant Commissioner. Being aggrieved by the order at Annexure 'h', this Writ Petition is filed for quashing of the same.

(3.) THE learned Counsel Sri Siddagangaiah, appearing for the petitioner strenuously contended that, by virtue of the provisions of rule 108 (D) of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, the appeal lies only to the Assistant Commissioner and there is no provisions for a second appeal being filed before the Deputy Commissioner and that the provisions of Section 50 of the Land Revenue Act are not applicable to the proceedings in Chapter XIII (A) of the Karnataka land Revenue Rules, 1996.