YELLAPPA BHIMMAPPA DIDDI Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the orders made by the Deputy Commissioner, Dharwar, in No.LBP(C) SR.2546 dt.21-8-1968, and by the Divisional Commissioner, Belgaum, in RB.CTS.SR.675 dt. 12-2-71. The last of the above orders is one made in a revision preferred against the earlier order of the Deputy Commissioner.

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows : In respect of a site situated in Annigeri village, the petitioner made an application for grant of 306 square yards on 13-7-1966, to the Asst. Commissioner, concerned. The site is CTS.No.2354 of Annigeri, taluka Navalgund. After the said application was processed the Assistant Commissioner granted the site on 2-7-1967 in his order No.CTS-NL-SR.593. It is also alleged that pursuant to such grant a 'kabulyath' was executed by the petitioner on 7-8-1967 on payment of amounts aggregating to about Rs.1000, as per the said order. It is also alleged that he took possession of the site on that date. Some five months after that order it was discovered by the. Deputy Commissioner of the District that the said order and several orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner were clearly in contravention of Rule 93A of the Land Revenue Rules of 1966. He, therefore directed issue of notices to all the parties concerned including the present petitioner pursuant to S.56 of the Land Revenue Act. The notice served on the petitioner in that behalf is dt.6-2-1968. After hearing the petitioner, and examining the cause shown by him, the Deputy Commissioner on 21-8-1968 passed orders cancelling the grant, and directing the refund of the, amount paid by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner went up in revision to the Divisional Commissioner, who dismissed it. Hence, this petition challenging the said two prders.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner, Sri B. G. Sridharan, the learned Counsel, urged that the order of the Deputy Commissioner clearly discloses that there was some representation by the villagers to the, effect that the site in quesion contained grain pits used by them, for quite some time past. This material according to the learned Counsel had not been put to the petitioner and therefore the order of the Deputy Commissioner suffers from the vice of breach of principles of natural justice, as the functions performed by the said authority in the matter on hand were of quasijudicial nature. I do not think that this contention should prevail. It is seen from the order of the Deputy Commissioner, that the operative portion of the said order which contains the reasons for the cancellation of the grant, does not at all rely on such a representaion made by the villagers . The reference to such a matter is to be found only in the preamble portion of the order, presumably on a note put up by the office or something else of that kind So long as such extraneous material has not been used by the Deputy Commissioner, for the purpose of coming to the conclusion adversely to the petitioner. I do not think it would be reasonable hold that there has been any violation of the principles of natural justice.