Divisional Commissioner vs H.

Hiriyannaiah on 10 September, 1991

Karnataka High Court

Divisional Commissioner vs H. Hiriyannaiah on 10 September, 1991
Equivalent citations: ILR 1992 KAR 232, 1991 (4) KarLJ 689
Author: Mohan
Bench: Mohan, Shivappa
ORDER Mohan, C.J.

1. The short question that arises for our consideration in these cases is whether under Section 56 of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the Divisional
Commissioner has suo motu powers of revision.

2. The learned Single Judge has held to the contrary holding that in so far as specific suo motu
powers have not been conferred and such a power is totally unavailable.

3. Before us the correctness of this view is canvassed, while the respondents support the Judgment
of the learned Single Judge, for our part, we find no difficulty in holding that he has suo motu
powers. We will do to extract Section 56(1) of the Act:-

"56. Power of revision- (1) The Tribunal, any Revenue Officer not inferior in rank to an Assistant
Commissioner, and any Survey Officer not inferior in rank to a Superintendent of Land Records or
an Assistant Settlement Officer in their respective departments, may call for and examine the record
of any inquiry or the proceedings of any subordinate officer under this Act or under Section 54 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself,
as the case may be, as to the legality or propriety of the proceedings of such officer.

Explanation - for the purpose of this sub-section -

(i) Special Deputy Commissioner shall be deemed to be not subordinate to the Deputy
Commissioner, and

(ii) All Revenue Officers shall be deemed to be Subordinate to the Tribunal."

4. In so far as Sub-section (1) says, 'may call for and examine the-record of any inquiry or the
proceedings of any subordinate officer'. We take it such a power is available both suo motu and at
the instance of the party. However, the exercise of the powers is circumvented by what is contained
under Sub-section (3) of Section 56 which reads as under:-

"56(3). No application for revision under this Section and no power of revision on such application
shall be exercised against any order in respect of which an appeal under this Chapter has been
preferred and no application for revision shall be entertained unless such application is presented
within a period of four months from the date of such order:

Provided that any Revenue Officer or Survey Officer referred to in Sub-section (1) may exercise
power under this Section in respect of any order against which no appeal has been preferred under

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/939451/ 1

 Divisional Commissioner vs H. Hiriyannaiah on 10 September, 1991

this Chapter, at any time within three years from the date of the order sought to be revised."

No doubt under Section 136(3) it has been specifically stated that the Divisional Commissioner may
on his own motion or on an application of a party, calf for and examine any records made under
Section 127 and Section 129 and pass such orders as he may deem fit. Merely because of the absence
of the word 'on his own motion' in Section 56, we find no difficulty to hold that there is no suo motu,
power. Even there though Section 56 does not expressly contain the word 'on his own motion' yet
this Court exercises suo motu powers in view of the language used 'may call for and examine the
records which is comprehensive enough to hold suo motu powers as well as the revision powers can
be exercised at the instance of the party. This Court in YELLAPPA BHIMAPPA DIDDI v. STATE OF
MYSORE AND ORS., 1974(1) KLJ 379 considering the similar question has laid the following
proposition of law at page 381:

"It seems to me that the above provision merely enables the authorities mentioned under
Sub-section (1) of Section 56 to exercise the power conferred therein even on an application made by
any person interested in or affected by any order made under this Act. In other words, it is clear that
Section 56 enjoins the exercise of the power by the authorities on their own, whether it is referable
as suo-motu exercise or otherwise, and also at the instance of a party aggrieved by any order made
under this Act. This is not to say that in all cases there shall be an application as provided for under
Sub-section (3) of Section 56, for the authorities named therein to exercise the power of calling for
records or for making appropriate order therein. To hold otherwise, as contended on behalf of the
petitioner, would lead to anomalous results as can be illustrated by the facts of the present case
itself. It is seen in the instant case that there is no one who is interested in challenging the order, as
it was a matter almost exclusively left between the Assistant Commissioner and the applicant
(petitioner). Once an order of this nature is made in contravention of the procedure enjoined under
Rule 93A of the Land Revenue Rules, the Assistant Commissioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved
person. In this state of affairs, the order made by the Assistant Commissioner although opposed to
Rules, which have been conceived in public interest, will have to be allowed to stand
notwithstanding the fact that public interest is affected thereby. It is perhaps to meet such an
anomaly, that the first" part of Section 56 has been enacted. I am not, therefore, persuaded to agree
with this contention."

Therefore, we conclude that the Divisional Commissioner has suo motu powers of revision. After
dealing with this proposition of law, we remit the matter to the Divisional Commissioner, Bangalore
District, Bangalore to deal with the matter on merits in the light of the amendment carried out to
Section 95(2) of the Act by Karnataka Act 2/91. We make it clear that all contentions are left open. It
is open to the respective respondents to file their statement of objections and address arguments
either in person or through Counsel.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/939451/ 2