GANGALAKSHAMMA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing Deputy Commissioner's order dtd. 22/12/2020 whereby his Revision in RP No.270/15-16 having been negatived, the Assistant Commissioner's order dtd. 30/11/2021 made in private Respondent's RA No.24/2009-10 has been affirmed. The Deputy Commissioner has made the order under Sec. 136(3) and the Assistant Commissioner made the order under Sec. 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 copies whereof are available at Annexures A & B respectively to the Writ Petition. By the said orders, Petitioner is relegated to the civil remedy.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Petitioner argues that her client bears another name as well i.e., Smt.Dhanalakshmamma; the entries certified in MR NO.8/98-99 could not have been put in challenge by the private respondent in RTS appeal years after without filing any application seeking condonation of delay as provided under sec. 126(2) of the 1964 Act; an appeal has been decided without condoning the delay is bad in law and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner ought to have allowed the Revision of his client. He also draws attention of the Court to a Compromise Decree entered in O.S.No.245/2010 wherein some reference is found as to Smt. Gangalakshmamma being described with an alias, i.e., Dhanalkshmamma. That being the position, he seeks voiding of the impugned orders.

(3.) Learned AGA appearing for the official Respondents opposes the Petition contending that the RTS proceedings are intended to locate a person prima facie liable to pay the Revenue and they do not have anything to do with the title to the property. He adds, this aspect needs to be looked into in Petitioner's pending Suit in O.S.NO.86/2015. Learned counsel appearing for the private Respondent No.5 vehemently opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order; he repeatedly contends that Petitioner Smt. Gangalakshmamma is different from Smt. Dhanalakshmamma. Now that the suit is pending as to the declaration of title to the subject property there are no circumstances warranting indulgence of the Writ Court, submit both the AGA and the Private counsel. So contending, they seek dismissal of the Writ Petition.