HAMPANAGOUDA Vs. NAGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dtd. 10/12/2013 passed by respondent no.8-Deputy Commissioner in Revision Petition No.4/2013-14.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for respondent nos.8 & 9 and the learned Counsel for respondent nos.5 & 7.

(3.) The petitioner claims to be the owner of the lands which were the subject matter of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The revenue entries in respect of the said lands were ordered to be mutated in the names of the parties to this writ petition in view of the judgment passed in O.S.No.236/1964 and also considering the subsequent sale transaction and actual possession of the property by the parties. The said order was passed on 10/9/2009. Subsequently, the Tahsildar modified the said order on 30/11/2009 and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner which was allowed on 8/6/2010 and the order passed by the Tahsildar dtd. 30/11/2009 was set aside and the order dtd. 10/9/2009 was restored. Challenging the said order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Sec. 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), respondent nos.1 to 4 herein had filed a revision petition before respondent no.8-Deputy Commissioner under Sec. 136(3) of the Act, which was numbered as Revision Petition No.9/2011-12. The said revision petition was dismissed on merits vide order dtd. 3/9/2013. Thereafter, respondent nos.1 to 4 herein preferred a second revision petition before respondent no.8 which was numbered as Revision Petition No.4/2013-14 and in the said revision petition, they had suppressed the fact of filing of earlier revision petition and they had also not made the petitioner herein as party to the proceedings. The Deputy Commissioner has allowed the second revision petition vide the impugned order and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.