MARAMMA Vs. TAHSILDAR SIRGUPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appears for the petitioner. When the matter has reached for hearing, there is absolutely no representation on the side of the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 is present and he has been heard in the matter. Learned Counsel for the other respondents is absent. There is absolutely no representation on their side also. Learned Government Pleader has contended that in the light of the decision of the Full Bench in Gururaj alias Gurunath Govindrao mutalik Desai v State of Karnataka and Others, the impugned order made by the Deputy commissioner at Annexure-D may not be maintainable and since the Deputy Commissioner has not considered the matter on merits, it has to be remanded back to the third respondent/deputy commissioner for consideration of the revision on merits.

(2.) THE short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the third respondent/deputy Commissioner was justified in dismissing the revision filed before her on the ground that a revision does not lie on an appellate order passed by the Assistant Commissioner by the impugned order as Annexure-D. In Gururaj's case, supra, the Full Bench of this Court has held as under:

(3.) IT has to be stated that even though the decision of the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136 (2) of the KLR Act is declared to be final, there is no bar to revision of that order under section 136 (3) by the Deputy Commissioner. The order of the Assistant Commissioner under section 136 (2) is to be treated as an order passed under Section 129 and not an independent order. That being so, so long as the matter pertains to Sections 127 and 129, the finality attached to an order made in appeal under Section 136 (2) is subject to the power of revision by the deputy Commissioner under Section 136 (3) of the KLR Act. In that view of the matter and in the light of the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Gururaj's case, supra, I hold that a Revision lies under Section 136 (3) of the KLR Act against an order made by the Assistant commissioner in a proceeding arising under Sections 127 and 129 of the KLR Act. I am therefore of the view that the order made by the Deputy Commissioner at Annexure-D cannot be sustained and hence it is liable to be set aside. Since the Deputy Commissioner has dismissed the revision petition solely on the ground that it is not maintainable and has not considered the case on merits, it would be just and proper for this Court to remit the matter to the third respondent/deputy Commissioner for disposal of the Revision on merits.