V HANUMANTHAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Act, 1978, (for short 'act') have proved to be a fertile ground for unending litigation during the course of which the statutory functionaries, namely, the Assistant Commissioner as the first authority and the Deputy Commissioner as the appellate authority also join the fray, many a times by taking sides to promote interest of one side or the other, though without any justification either on facts or in law, exercise their power in quixotic, arbitrary, whimsical manner, assume jurisdiction which is not conferred under the Act, pass orders which do not bear scrutiny even in the writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India even for a moment and bring to ridicule the law, provisions of the Act and the efforts on the part of law makers to achieve certain social goals and objectives.

(2.) THE present writ petition illustrates vividly as to how a successor Deputy Commissioner can misuse the powers of an appellate authority under Section 5a of the PTCL Act even to the extent of sitting in appeal over an appellate order that had been passed in the exercise of the very power and jurisdiction by his predecessor to characterise the earlier order that had been passed by the very appellate authority as illegal, not one in consonance with the provisions of the Act; that the order passed is not one that is envisaged under the provisions of the Act; that by calling in aid as apology, the powers under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (for short 'klr act'), he can do all these things for the purpose of exercising the very appellate jurisdiction under Section 5a of the Act which had been once invoked against the very order and which had been exercised by the very appellate authority for entertaining another appeal against the very order passed by the Assistant Commissioner in the present case which is dated 27-7-1992 against which, two sets of appeals had been filed earlier, one at the instance of the person claiming under the grantee as an applicant, i. e. , Appeal No. SC/st. 12/ 1992-93 and the other Appeal No. SC/st. 1571992-93 by persons who were in possession and occupation of the land which had come to be disposed of, by partly allowing the appeal of the applicant and dismissing the appeal of the respondents therein, persons claiming under the purchaser and who were in possession in terms of the appellate order dated 4-2-1994 and notwithstanding, the incumbent Deputy Commissioner not only entertains a fresh round of appeal against the order of the Assistant Commissioner dated 27-7-1992, nine years after passing of the original order and 7 years after passing of the appellate order because of which the original order had got merged with the earlier appellate order and in spite of that, not only entertains the appeal by purporting to condone the delay in preferring the appeal, but characterizing the earlier order of the appellate authority to be bad in law etc. , allows the present round of appeal, sets aside the entire order of the Assistant Commissioner which had reached finality in terms of the appellate order dated 4-2-1994 passed by the very appellate authority i. e. , the predecessor Deputy Commissioner in the earlier round and remands the matter to the Assistant Commissioner for fresh disposal.

(3.) IT is such sorry state of affairs which are revealed in the present writ petition questioning/challenging such arbitrary, quixotic, malafide exercise of power by the Special deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, Bangalore, who had acted as an appellate authority under Section 5a of the Act and passed such an order on 29-9-2003 (copy at Annexure-D) to the detriment of the present writ petitioner who is before this Court praying for invalidation of such order of the Special Deputy Commissioner.