PRABHUDAS Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner was the owner of a site bearing No. 11 situate within the jurisdiction of the Krishnarajapura Group Village Panchayat at the relevant time. He purchased that site under a sale deed dt. 26-6-1970. Sometime thereafter, he came to realise that he was in possession of an area of 45 feet in excess of what he had purchased under the sale deed. In that circumstance, he made an application to the Village Panchayat which is the 5th respondent herein, which has since merged within the notified area of the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd-6th rspondent herein. for regularisation, as the Village Panchayat in many other instances had regularised such occupation of adjoining land to site owners. That application was not acted upon by the -Village Panchyat. But, however, without disposing of the application of the petitioner, the Village Panchayat passed a resolution granting the same area to the 7th respondent, one Sri N. Balanagappa who claims to have been an earlier appli cant than the petitioner for the same land. Aggrieved by the resolution granting the site in favour of the 7th respondent, the petitioner approached the 4th respondent-Assistant Commissioner, Bangalore, Sub-Dvn. Bangalore, under S. 200 of the Karnataka Village Panchayats and Local Boards Act, 1959, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) praying for suspension of that resolution, as the same was illegal and unjust.

(2.) The Assistant Commissioner after enquiry refused to suspend the resolution granting the site in favour of the 7th respondent. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner filed an appeal under S. 206 of the Act before the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore. There were numerous such appeals pending before the Divisional Commissioner in similar circumstances. They were are all clubbed together and the Divisional Commissioner took the view that a revision was maintainable under S. 207 of the Act against an order made by the Assistant Commissioner under S. 200 of the Act. In other words, the Divisional Commissioner took the view that he was competent to go into the propriety and legality of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under S. 200 of the Act.

(3.) Aggrieved by that order, one of the parties in one of the appeals pending before the Divisional Commissioner took up the matter in revision before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore. Apparently all interested parties were heard in that revision petition which was taken on file as Revn. Petn. No. 41 of 1978. By an order dated 26th June, 1981, the 2nd respondent-Appellate Tribunal allowed the revision petition of the said K, N. Pillanna, and held that the Divisional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to entertain a revision petition under S. 207 of the Act, in respect of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under S. 200 of the 'Act: K. N. Pillanna y. Panchayat, K. R. Puram (1). The order affects the present writ petitioner as well. The present writ petition is directed against the Appellate Tribunal's order inter alia contending that the order is erroneous on a misunderstanding of the law declared by this Court in the case of Marichannaiah v. Dy. Commissioner (2).