RAJAVEERAPPA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the out-set Mr. Albal, Learned Counsel, appearing for the petitioners submitted that he may be permitted to convert this as Civil Revision Petition. Permission is granted. The office is directed to register this as Civil Revision Petition. Excess Court fee paid may be refunded.

(2.) This Petition is directed against the order of the District Judge, Chickrnagalur, dated 21-11-1980 under KVO. C.A. 1/80. The said appeal was filed by the petitioner' as Legal Representative of his father Kariappa, who had expired during the pendency of the proceedings against the order passed by the Tahsildar, Tarikere. The petitioner's contention was that his father Kariappa was functioning as Talwar and therefore, he was one of the persons interested in the Village Office and as such entitled for regrant. The Tahsildar has referred to certain documents in coming to the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner is not substantiated by those documents. This finding of the Tahsildar was challenged by the petitioner, in appeal, before the District Judge, Chickmagalur under sub section (2) of Section 3 of the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. The Learned District Judge has not referred to the material on record. The entire reasons are as found in para-7 which unfortunately does not reflect the application of mind by the Learned Judge to the material placed on record. It is to be mentioned that under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Village Offices Abolition Act only one appeal is provided to the District Judge and the order of the appellate authority is made final. In this view of the matter, it was necessary on the part of the Learned District Judge to have referred to the material placed by the respective parties and demonstrate that he has applied his mind, to come to the conclusion. The order does not satisfy this requirement and therefore, it cannot be sustained.

(3.) Sri Albal, appearing for the petitioner maintained that the order of the Tahsildar is also liable to be set-aside, as the Tahsildar has not held any enquiry and no statements of the parties were recorded and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to produce his material. He relied on Rule-7of the Rules framed under the Karnataka Village Offices Abolition Act. So far as this aspect is concerned, it is open for the petitioner to urge the same, before the District Judge and the same will be considered by the Learned District Judge on merits.