H N CHANDRASHEKAR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS' father Sri Nirvanappa lost the land under Bhadra Reservoir Project and in consideration of the same he was granted land bearing Sy. No. 30 measuring 3 acres in Kenchikoppa Village under the rehabilitation Scheme. The grant was made at an upset price of Rs. 75. 00 per acre. The said grant was in the year 1961-62 and in spite of the payment of upset price saguvali chit was not issued and possession was not given. Therefore, he filed W. P. No. 52 of 1978. The said writ petition was allowed with a direction to consider the case of Nirvanappa and to issue grant certificate within three months. In pursuance of the direction issued by this Court saguvali chit was issued on 31-7-1987, mutation has been made out in the name of the petitioners as by that time their father had expired. The third respondent-Erappa who claims to be in unauthorised occupation of the said land challenged the grant in favour of the petitioners' father and also sought for regularisation of his unauthorised occupation. The Assistant Commissioner is exercise of power under Section 49 rejected the claim of the third respondent on the ground that the said land has been granted to the petitioner in pursuance of the High Court order. Aggrieved by the same, third respondent preferred a second appeal under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land revenue Act (for short, called "the Act") to the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner after consideration held that there is no material on record to establish the claim of the third respondent that he is in unauthorised occupation of the said land and also as the said land is granted to Nirvanappa by direction of the High Court, he declined to interfere with the order of the Assistant Commissioner and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, Erappa preferred a revision before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal under Section" 56 of the Act. The karnataka Appellate Tribunal on consideration of the rival contentions came to the conclusion though there was no direction by the High Court for eviction of the third respondent, the authorities by misinterpreting the said order have ordered for eviction of the third respondent which is grossly unfair and illegal and therefore set aside the orders passed both by the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and remanded the matter back to the Deputy Commissioner for fresh consideration. It is against the said order, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.

(2.) SRI B. Rudra Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted when the third respondent has preferred a second appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner under Section 50 he was not entitled to invoke Section 56 of the Act and prefer a revision challenging the said order and therefore, the revision petition was not maintainable and consequently the order passed in revision petition is one without jurisdiction and is liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of puttahonnamma v C. Gangadhara Murthy and also the judgment of this Court in the case of Madan Kumar and Others v State of Karnataka and Others.

(3.) SECTION 56 of the Act reads as under.