DODDAKKA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TUMKUR SUB DIVISION TUMKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) heard. By the impugned Order annexure-e, the respondent assistant commissioner has set aside the Order passed by the revenue inspector, kora hobli in mr 25/89-90 by which the katha of sy, No. 151p was changed in favour of the petitioner. The reason given by the appellate authority for taking the said view is that katha was changed on the basis of panchayath parikhath executed during 1968 by which the property is said to have fallen to the share of the petitioner. But, as claimed the petitioner had subsequently executed a registered relinquished deed dated 19-1-1990 relinquishing her right in the land in question.

(2.) learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugnedorder on two grounds viz., (i) the appeal was hopelessly barred by limitation and therefore the same could not have been entertained without condonation of delay and (ii) the alleged deed of relinquishment is a concocted document and as such should not have been taken note of.

(3.) learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that respondent No. 3 had come to know about the certification of the entry only on 4-8-1993 and he had filed the appeal within 60 days thereof as provided under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka land revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). Therefore the appeal was much within time. With reference to the memo of appeal filed before the assistant commissioner, he states that this fact was duly mentioned in the memorandum of appeal which had not been controverted by the petitioner before the appellate authority. Therefore, according to him there was no occasion on the part of the assistant commissioner to pass any specific Order condoning the delay.