BEEPATHUMMA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA MANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the learned Counsels for the petitioner and the respondents, the matter is taken up for hearing.

(2.) The petitioner assailing the legality and validity of the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 27 -10 -1998 and the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22 -5 -2001, has presented this writ petition.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that she had acquired the Moolageni right in respect of Sy. No. 16/5 measuring 0.03 acre of Karnad Village, Mangalore Taluk, by a registered sale deed dated 8 -12 -1965. In pursuance of the said sale deed, mutation entries were sanctioned by the Competent Authorities and thereafter, the name of the petitioner was entered in the RTC extract. Subsequently, the petitioner had sought for permission for conversion of the Schedule property for residential purposes. The said permission was granted by the Competent Authority for converting the schedule property and sub -divided as 0.02 acre and 0.01 acre as per Annexure -G. Pursuant to the permission granted by the Competent Authority, the petitioner had constructed a residential house and she has been residing in the schedule property with her family members. Further, the case of the petitioner is that thereafter, she was paying the tax in respect of the schedule property and in support of the said submission she has produced Annexure -H. When things stood thus, the 4th respondent alleged to have given a representation to the 3rd respondent for rectification/clarification in respect of the mutation sanctioned in favour of the petitioner as early as on 23 -7 -1983. In pursuance of the said representation given by the 4th respondent, the 3rd respondent has clarified by its order dated 16 -8 -1996 in No. CR 39:96 -97 clarifying as to what is the extent held by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the said order passed by the 3rd respondent dated 16 -8 -1996, the 4th respondent filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner in No. RRT:SR:108/96 -97. The Assistant Commissioner by order dated 27 -10 -1998 has allowed the appeal setting aside the order passed by the 3rd respondent and the matter was remitted back for fresh disposal. Assailing the said order by the Assistant Commissioner dated 27 -10 -1998, the petitioner herein filed a revision before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The Deputy Commissioner after hearing both the sides has confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner with a direction to the 3rd respondent to hear the matter and pass appropriate orders. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner dated 22 -5 -2001 and the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner dated 27 -10 -1998, the petition has presented this writ petition.