GURURAJ GURUNATH GOVIND RAO MUTALIK DESAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference arises out of an order made by two of us (Rajendra Babu and Bhat JJ.) under Section 7 of the Karnataka High Court Act on the question - "Whether orders made under Section 118(2b) by the Assistant Commissioner in appeals against the orders of Tahsildar are subject to revision by Divisional Commissioner under Section 118A of the Act or not?"

(2.) The petition out of which this reference arises is directed against an order made by the Divisional Commissioner in exercise of the powers under Section 118A of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act ('the Act', for brevity). The said revision petition was filed before the Divisional Commissioner against an order made by the Assistant Commissioner in an appeal confirming an order made by the Tahsildar granting resumption to the petitioner under Section 15 of the Act. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that an order under Section 118(2b) of the Act is 'final' as provided in the Section itself. Relying upon a decision of this Court in ILR 1986 Kar 1059 Srimanmaharaja Niranjan Jagadguru Mallikarjuna Murugarajendra Mahaswamy v. Deputy Commissioner it is urged that Section 118(2b) of the Act having used the expression 'final' in respect of an order made by the Assistant Commissioner in an appeal and in the absence of express words in that Section or in Section 118A of the Act which affects that finality, it is submitted that the Divisional Commissioner has no power or jurisdiction to interfere with such an order.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that in view of the decision in AIR 1977 SC 1555 - Chhagan Lal v. The Municipal Corporation, Indore - merely because a provision is made rendering a decision final, will not take away the remedy by way of revision and that will only be effective in taking away a remedy by way of appeal and unless the finality clause is associated with the expression shall not be questioned in a court of law except as otherwise provided in the Act, the remedy of revision under S. 118A cannot be taken as excluded. It is therefore submitted that the order made by the Assistant Commissioner in an appeal against an order of the Tahsildar is subject to revision under Section 118A of the Act and as such as the Divisional Commissioner did have the jurisdiction to make a decision.