M JAGANNATH Vs. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 8-3-1989 of the 1st-respondent - Divisional Commissioner by which he set- aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Koiar, in which he had directed the Municipal Council to mutuate the name of the petitioner as the Kathedar of vacant land measuring 20 x 300 feet in Sy.No. 77 of Ban- garpet Kasaba, inter alia, on the ground that the Divisional Commissioner had no jurisdiction to set-aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

(2.) Ex facie, the argument is not tenable. Under Section 322 of the Karnataka a Municipalities Act, 1964 the Divisional Com- missioner is vested with power of revision suo moto or on the application of persons aggrieved or affected. In the instant case, a petition was indeed filed against the order of the Deputy Commissioner in Case No. MUD.APL.CR. 4/85-86 dated 12-4-1987. The petitioner before the Divisional Commissioner is none-other than the town Muncipal Council itself, respondent No. 3 in this writ petition. From the facts narrated in the order of the Divisional Commissioner, it is apparent that the Municipality claims the land to be its own. The Divisional Commissioner appears to have formed an opinion that from the records that claim is to be sustained because one Sri Srinivasalu Naidu who obtained a sanction of a lay-out had surrendered this land measuring 20 x 300 feet for the purpose of drainage in favour of the Municipality. No doubt the petitioner claims to have purchased the land from some one and therefore made an application to the Municipality to change the Katha to his name. As the Municipality did not respond to his request made in the application, he moved the Government by way of moving the Grievance Commissioner. The Grievance Commissioner forwarded the application of the grievance to the Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District. Thereafter the Deputy Commissioner has passed his order dated 22-4- 1987 in appeal No. MUD.APL.CR. 4/85-86.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out that under what authority or provision of law the Deputy Commissioner has jurisdiction to issue a direction to the Town Municipality. The only source of power conferred is for inspection and supervision under Section 304 of the said Act. That power cannot be utilised to give directions to the Town Municipal Council to do or not to do a thing. A specific power is conferred under Section 306(1) of the Act to suspend any action or resolution or work undertaken on behalf of the Town Municipal Council if it is detrimental to the public interest. But he has not acted in exercise of that power in suspending the resolution of the Town Municipal Council and to submit a report thereafter to the Divisional Commissioner for appropriate action.