PUTTE GOWDA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner before us challenges in this writ petition the order passed by the Government cancelling the previous grant which was made to him and dividing the lands between himself and respondents 5 and 6.

(2.) The facts of this case would appear more clearly from the recommendation made by the Revenue Commissioner to the Government on 14th November 1955 than from the petition or from the counter-affidavit which are filed before us. It appears from the said reference that the Deputy Commissioner had submitted to the Revenue Commissioner for confirmation of the lease grant of the lands in dispute made to the petitioner at an upset price of Rs. 500 per acre. The Revenue Commissioner in his turn recommended to the Government that the lease grant in respect of the lands in question in favour of the petitioner may be confirmed at an upset price of Rs. 600 per acre. It appears from the records of the Government relating to this matter, which have been produced before us by the Assistant Advocate-General, that a note had been put up before the Revenue Minister by the Revenue Secretary recommending that the proposal of the Revenue Commissioner treating as a case of cancellation of the lease and regrant may be sanctioned. The Revenue Minister gave his sanction to the said recommendation by putting his initials on the file on the 18th December 1955. From the subsequent records relation containing the Revenue Minister's initials was returned to the Revenue Secretary on 19th December 1955. On 30th December 1955 another not e was put up in this matter by the Secretary to the Revenue Minister. In the said note is stated that two other persons have made applications praying for giving an opportunity to be heard in this matter. The Secretary in his note recommended that these applications have either to be rejected or posted for hearing and that as orders have been passed on 18th December 1955 by the Revenue Minister, the same may be given effect to and the petition may be rejected. On this note, however, the Revenue Minister ordered that the Advocate should be heard on 23rd January 1956. It was on 23rd January 1956 that the Advocate for the parties were heard and a final order was made by the Revenue Minister although the order communicated to the petitioner bears the date December 14, 1956. It is this order which the petitioner is challenging in this writ petition. By this order the Revenue Minister directed that the land in question may be divided and allotted to the petitioner and to the other persons, (respondents 5 and 6 before us) who had applied to the Revenue Commissioner, in certain proportions mentioned in the order.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner urged only one point before us in support of this petition. He contended that the Revenue Minister having once passed an order on 18th December 1955 had no jurisdiction to review the same and pass a different order which he has purported to do. In support of this proposition he relied on a decision of the Mysore High Court reported in Sampu Gowda v. State of Mysore, AIR 1953 Mys 156, which was a Full Bench decision of the said High Court. The learned Advocate contended on the authority of this decision that there is no inherent power or authority vested in Government to review the orders passed for grant of land under the Land Revenue Code. The learned Advocate, as I have mentioned, urged before us that the order passed by the Revenue Minister on 18th December 1955 cannot be reviewed by him.