Karnataka High Court: While deciding a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench of B.S. Patil, J. held that the inherent powers conferred upon the Revenue Authority does not include the power of review, so as to review the final order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, on merits.

The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner whereby he revoked his earlier order passed in an appeal by the petitioner and directed for fresh consideration of the said appeal by exercising his powers under Sections 24 and 25 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964.

The petitioner contended that having passed the said earlier order allowing the appeal filed by the petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner has become functus-officio, and had no power to review the same under Section 25 of the Act.

While considering the contentions of the petitioner, the High Court found favor with the decision relied upon by the petitioner in N. Chandra Reddy v. State of Karnataka, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar 8039, whereby the High Court held that the Assistant Commissioner had no power to review his own final orders under Section 25 of the Act.

Accordingly, it was held that the impugned order could not be sustained and the petition was allowed setting aside the said impugned order. [Sri Munithirumalappa v. Assistant Commissioner, 2017 SCC OnLine Kar 2498, ordr dated 3.10.2017]

Must Watch

maintenance to second wife

bail in false pretext of marriage

right to procreate of convict

Criminology, Penology and Victimology book release

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.