M.B. Ramachandran vs K. Abdul Basith Khan and Others

Per K.V. Narayana Raju, M.:-This petition under S. 44 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act filed on 3-7-1980 is for a review of the judgment dated 27-5-1980 in Appeal 612/79 directing that the first appeal petition filed by the present petitioner before the Special Deputy Commissioner be returned for presentation to the proper authority, namely the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records or the Joint Director of Land Records.

The present petitioner Ramachandran preferred an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner on 22-3-1976 under S. 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act questioning the correctness of the order dt. 3-10-1979 passed by the Enquiry Officer, No. 23 City Survey, Bangalore in respect of portions in Sy. Nos. 101 and 102 of K.G. Byadarahalli, Civil Area, Bangalore. The learned Special Deputy Commissioner allowed the appeal and remanded the matter to the City Survey Officer for fresh enquiry. Aggrieved by that order respondents 1 and 2 herein preferred Apl. 612/79 before this Tribunal, a Bench of which by an order dt. 27-5-1980 held that the Enquiry Officer, City Survey was a Survey Officer subordinate to the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records, now designated as Joint Director, Land Records, and so under S. 49(e) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, an appeal could have been filed only before the Deputy Commissioner of Land Records, and consequently directed that the appeal petition filed before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore be returned.

The petitioner has said that by a Notification dt. 25-10-1969 the words "Deputy Commissioner" had been inserted for "Deputy Commissioner of Land Records"; and consequently the appeal filed before the Deputy Commissioner was competent; and that the Tribunal committed an error apparent on the face of the record by not taking congnisance of the amendment. It may be mentioned that by that Notification R. 69 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules was amended substituting "Deputy Commissioner" for "Deputy Commissioner of Land Records''

The counsel for the petitioner and respondents were heard. An Advocate who sent his vakalath for the Central Government did not appear on the dates of shearing. The counsel for the petitioner also did not turn up after 10-12-1981 when we raised a query about the applicability of Rr. 69 and 93 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules.

Only the advocate for respondents 1 and 2 was heard on 10-2-1982. The simple question for consideration is whether R. 93 read with R. 69 of Karnataka Land Revenue Rules authorises and provides an appeal from an order passed by City Survey Officer? (No).

There is no doubt that the appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, which was also styled as under S. 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act (not under the R. 69 or 93 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules) was from an order passed by the City Survey Officer during the stage of "preparation of the record" as distinct from "Maintenance of record". Chapter XII of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules (Rr. 82 to 93) deals with the matter of survey of sites in villages, town or city. The property in question is situate within the city of Bangalore and Rr. 82 to 92 deal with the preparation of the record of survey of sites. That Chapter XII in the Rules does not provide for appeals from orders that may be passed during the stage of "preparation" of the record. But R. 93 states that Rr. 68 and 69 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the survey of lands and their boundaries within sites of villages or the limits of cities and towns.

There can be no doubt that only Rr. 68 and 69 will have to be read in Ch. XII of the Rules. Those two rules Rr. 68 and 69 appear in Chapter IX of the Land Revenue Rules dealing with maintenance of the Record of Rights, as to agricultural lands. R. 69 provides an appeal from an order under R. 67 disposing of an objection filed to the mutations in the Record of Rights. We have no doubt whatsoever that the stage of maintenance of Record of Rights is subsequent to the preparation of Record of Rights relating to agricultural lands, or the preparation of Records and maps in the course of survey of lands within a city. (Emphasis supplied). After preparation of the Record of Rights of agricultural lands, or the record of survey of sites, which is called a Certificate or Property card; the final records are sent by the Survey Department to the Revenue Department for future maintenance. Any decision on disputes which arise in the course of stage of such maintenance of record is appealable under R. 69 or R. 93 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules.

An order passed even before a certificate or property card under S. 154 of the Land Revenue Act is granted is one passed during the stage of preparation of the survey record, and not one during the stage of maintenance, and therefore cannot attract Rr. 69 and 93. Orders during maintenance stage are passed by the officers of the Revenue Department, and, therefore, an appeal is provided to the Deputy Commissioner who is the head of the Revenue Department in the district. There is no rule which provides an appeal from an order passed by any officer at the stage of preparation of record or city survey and therefore it must be said that if at all only S. 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act applies.

Orders in the course of preparation of the record are passed only by the officers of the Survey Department and it is therefore natural that appeals from such orders can be brought only under S. 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. It is significant that Rr. 43(3) and 56 which provide for appeals from orders in the course of preparation of record of rights of agricultural lands are not made applicable and referred to in R. 93.

For the said reasons we should say that the order passed earlier by this Tribunal does not suffer from any error which can be corrected by way of review. The petition is dismissed.