B MAHADEVAIAH Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5 and the learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4.

(2.) THE essential facts of the case are that, the petitioner claims to be the owner in possession of sy. No. 25 measuring 3 acres 18 guntas situated at Manavarthakaval village, Uttarahalli hobli, bangalore South Taluk, having purchased the said land under registered safe deed in the year 1990. The land was granted to the vendors of the petitioner by the Government that was originally numbered as Sy. No. 7, subsequently it was renumbered as 25 and revenue records stood as Revenue No. 25 only. While executing sale deed by mistake it was mentioned as Sy. No. 26/1, though the boundaries described in the sale deed establish the fact that what was sold was sy. No. 25 only and not 26/1, It is the further case of the petitioner that respondent No. 5 purchased 4 acres of land by registered sale deed on 3. 9. 2003 from one Smt. Radhamma as shown in the sale deed as Sy. No. 25 though it should have been shown as Sy. No. 26/1. The vendors of the petitioner found discrepancy and made an application to Revenue Authorities to correct the survey number and assess the revenue to Sy. No. 25 only. The said application was allowed by the Tahsildar and in appeal filed under Section 136 (2) of the Karnataka Land revenue. Act (for short the Act) to the Assistant Commissioner by the fifth respondent, the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved by the said order passed in appeal under Section 136 (2)of the Act revision was filed before the Deputy Commissioner by the fifth respondent and the deputy Commissioner by order dated 7. 4. 2006 allowed the revision petition, set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar by allowing the revision petition and being aggrieved by the said order in revision passed by the Special deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District under Section 136 (3) of the Act, this writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the only two arguments he would be submitting for consideration of this Court is that, firstly the revision was not maintainable before the Deputy Commissioner against an order passed in appeal under Section 136 (2) of the Act and in view of the judgment of this Court in Sreemanmaharaja Niranjana jagadguru Mallikarjuna Murugharajendra Mahaswamy Matadhpathy v. Deputy Commissioner, coorg ILR1986 KAR 1059 , 1986 (1 )Karlj373 and the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Gururaj Gurunath Govind Rao Mutalik Desai v. The Statement of karnataka AIR1995 Kant 267 , AIR1995 KAR 267 , ILR1994 KAR 2341 , 1994 (4 )Karlj441 and the second contention is that the Special Deputy Commissioner could not have appreciated the evidence in revision and reversed the order passed by the assistant Commissioner confirming the order passed by the Tahsildar in favour of the petitioner.