Kolala Venkataswamy vs Pedda Mallappa and Another

K.V. Narayana Raju, M.-This is a very peculiar petition filed by the respondent for review of the Judgement dated 31-12-1979 dismissing Appeal 158/77.

Respondent Pedda Mallappa filed Apl. 158/77 against the order dated 10-12-1976 passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kolar directing the Assistant Commissioner to find out if the present petitioner was a resident of Kondliganahalli where the land granted was situate, and also to consult the Executive Engineer on the desirability of granting the land which was abutting the feeder channel. Against that order of remand the respondent preferred an appeal contending that there was no ground at all for remanding the matter for the second time, that the learned Deputy Commissioner mis-interpreted the earlier order, that there was no need at all to have the opinion of the Assistant Engineer, etc. A bench of this Tribunal held that there was no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Deputy Commissioner remanding the case and consequently dismissed the appeal. But the Bench made certain observations which the petitioner before us thinks seriously prejudices him in putting forth his case before the Asst. Commissioner. The learned Members of the Bench have said that the claim of the present petitioner was rightly rejected and that the respondent herein was entitled to hakdari over the trees on the land. The Bench has also held that the petitioner before us had admitted that he was a resident of Chintapalli and not Kondliganahalli.

The petitioner has contended that there was no admission at all that he was a resident of Chintapalli, that the learned Members of the Bench have drawn inferences without proper material, that while dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of remand passed by the Deputy Commissioner directing investigation into the rival claims, ought not to have recorded any finding which would throw any suggestion that Tribunal had expressed final opinion on controversial issues.

Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and also for the respondent 1, we are of the opinion that such observations as have been made and are inconsistent with the final decision are in the nature of obiter dicta and not findings which can be regarded as final and binding on the present petitioner or the Assistant Commissioner to whom the matter has been remitted. Such statements in the passing cannot be regarded as decisions calling for review. We think it is sufficient if it is clarified that those observations shall not be treated as conclusions, and that since there is no case at all for reversing the decision with which the petitioner is satisfied, there is no case for reviewing the decision.

Subject to the observations made above, the review petition is dismissed.