Karnataka Land Revenue Act | Deputy Commissioner Cannot Invoke Inherent Powers To 'Casually Rescind' 25 Yr Old Conversion Order: High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that inherent power vested under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 with the Deputy Commissioner cannot be invoked casually to rescind orders of conversion of land.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed an appeal filed by C G Jagdish and said “The inherent power vested in a Revenue Court by virtue of Section 25 of the 1964 Act could not have been invoked, even if we agree that the order of conversion was statutorily appealable. A resort to inherent power is not like a drug of choice for a physician.”

The single judge bench of the court had set aside the order dated 15-02-2014 passed by the Deputy Commissioner rescinding the Conversion Order dated 06.10.1998 issued by the Tahasildar.

The appellant argued that the Conversion Order could not have been issued at all and therefore, the Deputy Commissioner in the exercise of inherent power vested under Section 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 has rightly rescinded the same.

It was argued that even otherwise, an appeal may lie to challenge the Deputy Commissioner's Order before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in quashing the order of the Deputy Commissioner.

The bench noted that the Conversion Order which was in existence for the last quarter century could not have been 'casually rescinded by the Deputy Commissioner,' especially, when there was no plausible explanation for the long delay in challenging the same.

It was held that even as laid down in the statute, under the provision for invoking the Deputy Commissioner's inherent powers, the same must be scarcely availed.

The Deputy Commissioner admittedly is not the Appellate Authority in matters like this and therefore, he could not have invoked Section 25 as if he was sitting in appeal,” it was observed.

The Court added “The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that whatever grievance the appellant can have against the Conversion Order can be considered only after he established title to the land in question. Thus, he has not foreclosed the issue. Therefore, much grievance cannot be raised against the impugned order which has brought about a just result by balancing the competing claims of the rival parties.”

Accordingly, it dismissed the appeal.

Appearance: Advocate Nataraj G for Appellant.

AGA Niloufer Akbar for R1 to R3.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 459

Case Title: C G Jagdish AND State of Karnataka

Case No: Writ Appeal No. 387 of 2023.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment