KHATUNBI Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BIJAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two substantial questions of law arose for consideration before the Tahsildar and Taluk Executive Magistrate, Jamkhandi, and also before the Deputy Commissioner, Bijapur They are whether the applicant before the Tahsildar was a debtor within the meaning of Section 2(6) of the Karnataka Debt. Relief Act and whether the transfer of the property in question was through the instrumentality of a sale or a mortgage.

(2.) The findings of the Tahsildar are not only specific, but also supported by reasons. It is not necessary for me to decide whether or not the findings of the Tahsildar are just and proper. But what I am concerned with is the question whether the Deputy Commissioner in exercising the revision power under Section 14 of the Act has acted in accordance with the requirements of law in disposing of the revision petition. It is in this revision petition filed under Section 14 of the Act the petitioner had invoked the revision jurisdiction calling upon the Deputy Commissioner to satisfy himself as to the legality of the proceeding which took place before the Tahsildar.

(3.) After going through the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner under Annexure-A, it is noticed that though in the narration of the facts the Deputy Commissioner has stated that the respondent has contended that the deed executed is a sale deed, the Deputy Commissioner has not troubled himself to probe into this question and give a specific finding as to whether or not the transaction is in the nature of a sale or a mortgage. However instead he has taken into consideration that the petitioner had sold another piece of land for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/- on 21-10-1976 when the Act came into force and that, therefore, the petitioner was not qualified to be a debtor. He has also observed that the transfer being the subject matter of the proceedings which had taken place anterior to the appointed date, he is in agreement with the Tahsildar that the applicant is not entitled to the relief under the Act and has proceeded to dismiss the revision petition.