VENKATAMMA Vs. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is a Civil typical example of the manner of functioning of revenue officials, particularly, higher revenue officials holding the rank of Special Deputy Commissioners as to how they go about their work and more so, when they are exercising their suo motu revisions jurisdiction for reviewing any proceedings relating to entries being made in the revenue records for changing the entry from the name of one person in favour of any other person who claims that interest in the subject land has passed on from the erstwhile person to latter one claiming or seeking for his name to be entered in the revenue records. Revenue entries by themselves do not necessarily confer title and on the other hand, they only reflect the right, title and interest a person may otherwise have or has otherwise acquired. Unfortunately, ignorant and misled citizens believe that getting the revenue entries mutated is the most important aspect for getting ownership or title to the property to agricultural lands and even attach more importance to the entries being mutated in their names in the revenue records with the revenue authorities, who are responsible for effecting such changes in the revenue records particularly, after following the procedure contemplated in terms of Sections 127 and 129 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (for short 'the Act') have either been filing appeals as provided under Sub-section (2) of Section 136 or invoking revkional jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Act.

(2.) The relevant provision viz., Sections 127, 128, 129, 130, 133, 134, 135 and 136 of the Act reads as under:

(3.) A general impression has gained ground that even when a person who has invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the Asst. Commissioner under Sub-section (2) of Section 136 of the Act has gone through that process, can nevertheless invoke the revisions! jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner under Sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Act, though in terms of the proviso to Section 135 of the Act, the further course of remedy for such persons who claim to have been affected by the appellate order passed by the Asst. Commissioner is only to approach the Civil Court and the Deputy Commissioner does not have jurisdiction over such orders as sue motu revisional jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner can only be in respect of original proceedings that have taken place and as contemplated in Sections 127 and 129 of the Act as indicated in Sub-section (3) of Section 136 of the Act itself.