FAKIRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE WRIT PETITION. NO ERROR OF JURISDICTION IS POINTED OUT IN THE IMPUGNED DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER'S ORDER. RELIANCE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF FAKIRAPPA AND OTHERS V STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS IN W.P. NO. 3886/1986, DATED 14TH DECEMBER, 1987 AND CONNECTED MATTERS HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THE CONTENTION OF SRI GACHCHINAMATH THAT ONLY THE STATE GOVERNMENT MAY REVISE AND THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER HAS NO JURISDICTION IS TOTALLY ILL-FOUNDED AND AS A RESULT OF INCORRECT READING OF THE LAW.

(2.) SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 4 CLEARLY EMPOWERS THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER TO CONSIDER SUO MOTU THE ORDER OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OR MANDAL PANCHAYAT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) AS WELL AS SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 4 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN MR. GACHCHINAMATH'S CONTENTION THAT THE ORDER UNDER SUBSECTION (2) IS UNDER THE SPECIAL ORDER OF THE GOVERNMENT. NO SUCH SPECIAL ORDER IS BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE WHICH MADE THE ORDER OF THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER INCONSISTENT.

(3.) THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL IS REJECTED. PETITION IS MISCONCEIVED. THEREFORE, IT IS DISMISSED.