SMT. PUTTAHONNAMMA versus C. GANGADHARA MURTHY AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 75 · Decided: 02-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

----
SMT. PUIT AHONNAMMA 
A 
v. 
C. GANGADHARA MURTHY AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 2, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]. 
B 
Kamataka Land Revenue Act, 1956 : 
Sections 49, 50, 56-Filing of second appeaf-Statut01y remedy avail-
able to aggTieved party-Party failing to avail the remedy of second ap-
C 
peal-Not precluded from availing revision merely because he has not availed 
the remedy of second appeaf-Sub-section (3) of S.56 as amended by the 
Amendment Act 33 of 1975r-Tiierefore order of Joint Director not a nullity 
or without jurisdiction-Matter remitted to High Court for consideration of 
the case according to law. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3407 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.4.94 of the Karnataka High 
Court in W.P. No. 1628/92. 
M. Ramajois, S.N. Bhat and P.S. Panwar for the Appellant. 
Santhosh Hegde, M.K. Bhat, P.P. Singh, R.S. Hedge and P. Mahale, 
for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
Leave granted. 
D 
E 
F 
We have heard the counsel for the parties, this appeal by special 
leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High G 
Court dated April 21, 1994 made in W.P. No. 1628/92. the High Court in 
the impugned order has held that since the appeal under Section 50 of the 
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1956 (for short, the "Act") has not been 
preferred by the appellant, the revision under Section 56 is not main-
tainable. Therefore, it has remitted the matter to the Assistant Director of 
Survey & Settlement and Land Records for disposal of the matter in H 
75 
76 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A accordance with law in the light of the order made by the Deputy Assistant 
Director of Land Survey & Settlement Officer in Annexure-A dated 
August 7, 1989. The facts are not in dispute. They are as under : 
B 
In a Family partition on February 11, 1953, the properties were 
divided between two branches. In furtherance thereof, a further partition 
had taken place on May 8, 1967 in which the properties have been divided 
between the appellant's husband and the respondents. For the demarcation 
of boundaries, the appellant had applied to the Assistant Director, Land 
Records to mutate the lands in her name with the boundaries thereunder. 
The Assistant Director by his proceedings dated October 14, 1986 demar-
C cated the lands. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal under 
Section 49 of the Act before the Deputy Director Land Records who had 
allowed the appeal and set aside the order by proceedings dated August 
7, 1989 and remitted the matter to the Assistant Director to proceed with 
demarcation in the light of the directions given in the order. 
D 
The appellant filed a revision under Section 56. The Joint Director 
by his order dated June 26, 1991 allowed the revision and set aside the 
order of the appellate authority and confirmed the order of the Assistant . 
Director. The respondents filed a revision under Section 56 to the Director. 
The Director by his order dated September 16, 1991 dismissed ~he same. 
E In a further revision filed by him the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal 
by order dated January 1, 1992 dismissed the revision holding that no 
second !evision is maintainable under Section 56. The respondents filed 
the writ petition in the High Court. As stated earlier, the Division Bench 
has allowed the writ petition with the above direction. 
F 
A contention was raised in the High Court that since the second 
~ppeal has been provided under Section 50 of the Act, the revision under 
Section 56 is not maintainable. The High Court accepted the said conten-
tion and allowed the writ petition in part and remitted the matter to the 
G Assistant Director as referred to earlier. The High Court while holding that 
the second revision is not maintainable has held further that the order 
passed by the joint Director, namely 1st revisional authority was a nullity 
for want of jurisdiction. The conclusion in that behalf is that since the 
appeal under Section 50 would lie against the order under Section 49, 
failure to avail. of the remedy under Section 50, the appellant became 
H disentitled to avail of revisional jurisdiction under Section 56: therefore, 
,..J-
j 
f-
.1 
PUTIAHONNAMMA v. C.G. MURTHY 
77 
the order of the Joint Director was held to be without jurisdiction and a A 
nullity. Accordingly, it remitted· the matter to the primary authority for 
disposal. 
The question, therefore, is
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.