PATIL CHANNABASAVANA GOUDA Vs. KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has sought for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order dt.20-8-197G bearing Revn.No.289/76(LR) passed by the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, at Exhibit 'C'.

(2.) The revision before the first respondent arose in this way: The petitioner was working as a Village Munsiff of Jaliha] and Bommanahal Group Villages upto 1964. He absented himself from discharging the duties of the Village Munsiff on the ground of ill-health and remained absent from January, 1964 till April 1974. He approached the Asst Commr to take him on duty after April, 1974. The Asst Commr, Bellary, rejected his request on the ground that he had lost his right and lien over the village office after the promulgation of Karnataka Hereditary Village Offices Abolition Act of 1961. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commr under S.25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. The Deputy Commr, upon consideration of the material before him and upon hearing the parlies, interfered with the order passed by the Asst Commr and held tnat the petitioner was entitled to continue as Village Munsiff by his order dt.9-1-75 applying the provisions relating to Village Accountants provided in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act of 1964. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Deputy Commr, the 4th respondent filed a revision before ihe first respondent-Karnataka Appelate Tribunal at Bangalore. The first respondent reached the conclusion that the Deputy Commr was in error in entertaining the appeal under S.25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act against the order of the Asst Commr. Further, it reached the conclusion that the view taken by the Deputy Commr that alter the abolition of hereditary Village Munsiff s Office incumbents were continued on a temporary basis, is not correct. In that view of the matter the Tribunal allowed the revision. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the first respondent. Now the short question for decision is whether the appeal filed before the Deputy Commr under S.25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act of 1964 was maintainable.

(3.) Mr. K. A. Swamy, learned Advocate for the petitioner, is unable to support the position that an appeal under S.25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act was maintainable before the Deputy Commr. But, his argument was that any order passed by the Asst Commr on the administration side was appealable before the Deputy Commr. He is unable to point out any provision of law, rule, regulation, or any Govt Order to that effect Therefore, it must be held that the appeal filed by the petitioner under Sec.25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, which as held by the first respondent, is not maintainable before the Deputy Commr. The Deputy Commr was in error in reaching the conclusion that the Village Accountants have certain statutory functions to discharge under the Land Revenue Act of 1964 and so they are not holding the posts only by administrative orders but their appointments have been made statutorily. The Deputy Commissioner appears to have ignored the fact that the case he was dealing with was one of a Village Munsiff. Therefore, he committed an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal, therefore, has rightly interfered with the order passed by the Depuy Commissioner.