B.S.PRASANNAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners having suffered rejection of their revision petition filed under Sec. 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 at the hands of Deputy Commissioner are grieving before the Writ Court. Their learned counsel vehemently argues that the subject registered document based upon which the Assistant Commissioner had made the order u/s 136(3) is a spurious document and therefore, his order ought to have been set aside by the Deputy Commissioner. He hastens to add that the signature on the document in question is not of petitioners father.

(2.) After service of notice, Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are represented by the learned AGA and private Respondent Nos. 5 to 10 are represented by their private advocate. They oppose the writ petition contending that the revisional jurisdiction is restrictive; the revisional Court is not the right place to adjudge the validity of a registered conveyance based on which the Assistant Commissioner has made the order and therefore the order of the Deputy Commissioner cannot be voided. So contending, they seek dismissal of the writ petition.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is broadly in agreement with the submission made on behalf of respondents. A Full Bench decision of this Court in JAYAMMA & OTHERS Vs. State OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, ILR 2020 KAR 1449 supports this view. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the Civil Court for the redressal of their grievance. If the Civil Court grants a decree in favour of the petitioners, the same shall be acted upon by the Revenue Authorities in terms of Proviso to Sec. 135 of the 1964 Act. All contentions are kept open. No costs.