MADAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE fourth respondent-Tahsildar allotted to the petitioners, Site Nos. 99, 100 and 101 of Munnekolala Village, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk. Pursuant to the grants made in the year 1972, the lands granted came to be entered in the village panchayat records and the petitioners secured building licences for building on the sites granted to them. Krishna Reddy, the owner of Sy. No. 97 sought to challenge the grant in favour of the petitioners by an appeal filed i. e. , R. A. No. 47 of 1986-87. The appeal under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act of 1964 (hereinafter called the 'act'), after hearing, was dismissed on 30-6-1988 as per Annexure-E. Respondents 5 to 14 were substituted as L. Rs of Krishna Reddy. Respondents 5 to 14 appealed under Section 50 of the Act to the Deputy Commissioner in Appeal No. 8 of 1988-89 which stood dismissed on merits on 15-7-1989 as per Annexure-F.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by the order Annexures-A and F, the petitioner filed Revision No. 156 of 1989. In the revision, respondents 5 to 14 sought to produce additional evidence by way of LA. No. 3 which despite objections, came to be allowed. The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 4314 of 1992 challenging the order on LA. No. 3 and obtained an order of stay. Notwithstanding the stay order being brought to its notice, the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal allowed the revision. In this writ petition, the order of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal is challenged.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, respondents 5 to 14 preferred the first appeal under Section 49 of the Act to the Assistant Commissioner and preferred the second appeal to the Deputy Commissioner under Section 50 of the Act and thereafter preferred Revision No. 156 of 1989 to the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and succeeded in having the appellate orders set aside. The petitioners have challenged the order in Revision No. 156 of 1989 as being without jurisdiction. During the course of the arguments, the petitioners relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Puttahonnamma v. Gangadhara Murthy , wherein the decision of this Court in C. Gangadhara Murthy v State of Karnataka and Others , was reversed. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 56 of the Act and in para 7 of the judgment, has made the following observation: