Sri B Poornachandra Reddy S/O … vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2011

Karnataka High Court
Sri B Poornachandra Reddy S/O … vs State Of Karnataka on 25 May, 2011
Author: D.V.Shylendra Kumar
BEGURHOBLL  _«   ,  
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK : *  -r RES.P{}_N'DEN7E'S--

[By Sri R Ornkurnar,      , " 

THESE I>ETnIONs ARE 'FILED UNDER.ARfII<:L'Es..:I,2e 
22*? OF THE CONSTITUTION OEINDIA, pRAI{ING.'TOI,OUAsH THE
ORDER DATED 22.2.2011 MMDE I-N R,A.(S).N-0.239/.2009--10 BY
THE 2ND RESPONDENT, ,~As= ._'RER_ ANN'EICo'RE~I3 AND

CONSEQUENTLY TO DIRECT THE :;I».I.D” RESPONDENT TO RESTORE
THE FILE AND TO DEAL WITH’THE:1APPEAL”£N”ACCORDANCE: WITH
LAW AND E)’I’C., V G * ..

THESE i?_E2″i’I_f1’iONS ‘OOMIN’O–_ ON, “FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS’ DAY., TIII3: FOLLOWING:

Persons’.-i’eeiiI’i«g;.difficuitjz– in,I’espect of Orders passed
by revenue Ae.iithOi%itie’s~ii’I exercisie of appellate jurisdiction
under Section Karnataka Land Revenue Act,

1964 [fo13\341*1O.I’tV,VV’ or revisional jurisdiction under

Section 136(V3}…Aof the Act, can definitely get their

by filing a suit before civil court, get

:”t.1_q’e’i_ij.riigh’_£s_ Ieseived in respect Of immovable properties fOr

the”‘-.refiecti*On of which rights in the revenue entries

H V.”statuto’rv provisions are made and if the revenue entry is

way at variance with the determination made by

%

3

the civil court, to bring it in conformity’ .\?i;7i’:i]i “the

determination by the civil court.

2. Disputes relating to immo\}’ablie_’ p’lro}fie_rties

resolved in revenue offiCe’s,”~thoug’h 1’evein.ue.’authorities’

have the responsibility to Inain’tain-.reVen uelrecoirds for the
purpose of realizing revenue to from the owner of
the property. There is_I:’1o.VmVore significance to the khata

assigned by t_he”ifeveni1e authorities.’-…..i–

3. toythe lstatelrom such land revenue
havingbe_coine7abysIjnally~–low, it is high time such darbar
jurisdiction of revenueeiuthorities is brought to an end

and procedure ..for”‘co1Vlecting land revenue streamlined.

unfortunate our legislature is sleeping

overtAsueiifinatters and does not update the laws. We

‘V suffer laws made in a bygone era only suited to

l”V.:e».,sem-ye the requirement of a feudal state, reigning over the

— subjlects of this country by a foreign power!

4

51 Our independence and our country becoming
republic will have no meaning and significancee.__if.we do

not usher in laws which meet requirementsfof ‘people

in our country and in our society, and which. resp’o’ndV’~–.

to the hopes and aspirations of 4’

6. It is high time that theihjflct on the
Karnataka Land Revenge (_3o’de,:-iii is giver: a second or
a third look and the statiitory’;provisiopnspruned to ensure

that it serves ‘t3:«;.e1′ purpose if”or”v§}hi.ch..I8:W is made.
7′. Itr.__isV”~.fo1§.:_;;;j;his.:”i1eas0r3.,W_ though the petitioner is
compiaining Certain orders passed by the

Assistant…’ hconiniissioner while exercising appellate

juirfidiction tiri’der___Liection 136(2) of the Act. I am of the

.opi-nion”~this—_is not a fit case for exercise of the

di.s’cretioria:35 Writ jurisdiction.

Exren as provided in the proviso to Section 135 of the

enactments the proper course of action is to approach

2 “the eivil court and it is for such reason, these writ

petitions are not examined any fwther but di3m3$€d at

the threshold.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *