Siddaramu vs The Assistant Commissioner and Prescribed Authority, Tahsildar and Smt. G. Chintamani

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this court assailing the Official Memorandum dated 20.09.2008 in No. RRT(2)CR 290/2008-09 and the order dated 11.08.2009 in No. R.Mis.250/2008-09. The said orders are impugned at Annexures ''D'' and ''K'' to the writ petition.

The case of the petitioner is that he has filed Form No. 7-A seeking grant of the land measuring 1 acre 13 guntas in survey No. 533 of Srirangapattana village, Kesaba Hobli. At the first instance the Assistant Commissioner had granted the land in favour of the petitioner. Subsequently the respondents herein questioned the same before the Appellate Tribunal, the same also ended in a writ petition before this court, insofar as the proceedings relating to the claim made by the petitioner in Form No. 7-A, the earlier proceedings have bean set aside and the matter is presently pending before the Authorized Authority/Assistant Commissioner considering the claim put forth by the petitioner.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the claim made by the petitioner is based on the revenue entries which existed as on 01.03.1974 and the present change Bade by the impugned official Memorandum to the nana of the respondents could affect his right and therefore the original entry which existed as on 01.03.1974 and prior to that date will have to be retained. Therefore the petitioner questioning the Official Memorandum by which the nana of the respondents was entered had filed an appeal u/s 136(2) of the Land Reforms Act before the Assistant Commissioner. The Assistant; Commissioner has disposed of the appeal only noticing that the revenue proceedings are pending and therefore the appeal need not be considered.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner points that firstly there is an error with regard to the mentioning of the case number and secondly the Assistant commissioner could not have come to such conclusion, since in any event the matter should have been considered by the Assistant Commissioner on it merits. The restoration of the revenue entries is on 01.03.1974 should be made and the same should be retained to the name of the petitioner. The respondents would however contend that firstly this petition itself is not maintainable since as against the order passed u/s 136(2), the petitioner has not availed the alternate remedy of revision before the Deputy Commissioner as provided u/s 136(3) of the Act. It is contended that even otherwise the Assistant Commissioner was justified.

Though the rival contentions have Seen advanced and the learned Counsel has also referred to civil proceedings between the parties, the fact which is in dispute is that the petitioner is claiming right to the property as a tenant of the same and therefore has presently-filed Form No. 7-A. Though in the first round the same was disposed of, the fact that the same is now pending before the Assistant commissioner i.e., the Authorized Authority for reconsideration is not in dispute. Therefore the only question is the mutation orders and the revenue entries to be made in respect of the property pending consideration of the same. Since presently the respondent has obtained the change it would make obvious of the earlier entry which existed. In any event after the proceedings before the Authorized Authority is completed and if right is granted in favour of the petitioner, the same would have to be altered to the name of the petitioner. The only situation is that the Authorized Authority should not be mislead by the revenue entries which had been presently changed by the Tahsildar and not interfered with by the Assistant commissioner.

To the said extent it is clarified that the Assistant Commissioner while considering the case of the petitioner for the right claimed in Form No. 7-A will net refer to the present change of mutation orders or revenue entries which have been made vide Official Memorandum dated 20.09.2008 (Annexure � ''D'') but would refer to the one which existed prior to the impugned entry which is complained of by the petitioner. After the matter in LRT. No. 8/1998-99 is decided by the Assistant commissioner the parties would be at liberty to seek for appropriate changes if necessary. It is needless to mention if any charge or third party interested is created by the contesting respondent herein based on the existing revenue entries, the same would ultimately remain subject to the Form No. 7A proceedings before the Assistant Commissioner.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.