ANNAPURNA Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAICHUR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order passed by Deputy Commissioner, Raichur District allowing a revision petition filed by respondents no. 4 and 5, thereby, setting aside an order passed by Assistant Commissioner, Lingasugar.

(2.) Material facts not in dispute are; that land measuring 32 acres and 20 guntas bearing Sy. No. 79 situated at Village Timmapur, Taluk Sindhanur, District Raichur was standing in the name of Smt. Shankaralingamma, Wife of Mallareddy i.e., the mother of petitioner and respondents no. 4 and 5. Mutation of the said property was effected on 8-2-1993. Sri Mahesh Reddy, another son of Smt. Shankaralingamma, died on 19-6-1996, unmarried. Mutation in respect of the said property having been effected in the names of respondents no. 4 and 5 i.e., the brothers of petitioner, an appeal was filed before Assistant Commissioner, Lingasugar and registered as No. RRT/APPEAL/251/2011-1 After hearing, the case was rejected by an order dated 8-10-2012 holding that parties should get the dispute adjudicated in Civil Court. The petitioner having filed a petition, under Sec. 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (for short, 'the Act'), was registered by the Assistant Commissioner, Lingasugur as No. RRT/APPEAL/251/2012-13. By making a reference to an alleged Will of Smt. Shankaralingamma, an order dated 26-6-2013, as at Annexure-A was passed, whereby, mutation effected on 2-1-1983 and 9-11-2000 was rescinded and ordered to be made in favour of the petitioner. Assailing the said order, respondents no. 4 and 5 filed a Revision Petition No. 31 of 2013-14, under Sec. 136 of the Act, before the Deputy Commissioner, Raichur District. Revision petition having been allowed by an order dated 17-6-2013, as at Annexure-C, this writ petition was filed.

(3.) Sri Chaitanya Kumar C.M., learned Advocate contended that the 1st respondent has acted arbitrarily and illegally in allowing the petition and setting aside the order passed in exercise of review power by the 2nd respondent. He submitted that review petition having been allowed on consent by the 2nd respondent, revision petition filed before 1st respondent being not maintainable, impugned order is liable to be interfered with.