http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: SMT.PUTTAHONNAMMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: C. GANGADHARA MURTHY & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/02/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (2)   511        1996 SCALE  (2)348

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      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  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 maintainable.  Therefore, it  has remitted the matter to the Assistant  Director of  Survey  &  Settlement  and  Land Records for disposal of the matter in 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:      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 demarcated  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.      The appellant  filed a  revision under  Section 56. The Joint Director  by his  order dated  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

Director. The Director by his order dated September 16, 1991 dismissed the  same. In  a further revision filed by him the Karnataka Administrative  Tribunal by order dated January 1, 1992 dismissed  the revision holding that no second revision 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.      A contention  was raised  in the  High Court that since the second  appeal has been provided under Section 50 of the Act, the  revision under Section 56 is not maintainable. The High Court accepted the said contention and allowed the writ petition in  part and  remitted the  matter to the 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, Ist  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 disentitled  to avail  of revisional jurisdiction  under Section  56;  therefore,  the order  of   the  Joint  Director  was  held  to  be  without jurisdiction and  a nullity.  Accordingly, it  remitted  the matter to the primary authority for disposal.      The question,  therefore, is: whether the High Court is right in  its conclusion that without availing the remedy of second appeal under Section 50, the party would be precluded to avail the remedy of revision under Section 56. Section 50 reads thus:      "50. Second  Appeal  (1)  A  second      appeal shall  lie against any order      passed  in  a  first  appeal  under      Section 49 :-      (a) if  such an  order is passed by      the Assistant  commissioner, to the      Deputy Commissioner;      (b) if  such an  order is passed by      the  Deputy  Commissioner,  to  the      Tribunal;      (bl) if  such an order is passed by      the  Assistant  Superintendent  for      Settlement   or    the    Assistant      Superintendent of  Land Records, to      the Director  of Survey, Settlement      and Land Records;      (c) if  such an  order is passed by      the  Deputy  Commissioner  of  land      Records or  Deputy Commissioner for      Settlement or  by the  Director  of      Survey, Settlement and Land Records      to the Tribunal.      (2)  An   order  passed  on  second      appeal shall be final."      Section 56 reads thus:      (56.  Power  of  revision:-(l)  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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

    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. Proviso [* * * ]      Explanation:-For  the  purposes  of      this sub-section,      (i) Special Duty 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.      (1-A) [* * *]      (2) If,  any case,  it shall appear      to the  Tribunal or to such officer      aforesaid,  that  any  decision  or      order or  proceedings so called for      should  be  modified,  annulled  or      reversed, Tribunal  or such officer      may pass  such  orders  as  may  be      deemed fit:      Provided that  no  order  shall  be      modified,  annulled   or   reversed      unless notice  has been  served  on      the    parties    interested    and      opportunity given  to them of being      heard.      (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      subsection (1)  may exercise  power      under this  section in  respect  of      any order  against which  no appeal      has  been   preferred  under   this      Chapter, at  any time  within three      years from  the date  ok the  order      sought to be revised.      Explanation;-  In   computing   the      period  of   limitation   for   the      purpose  of  this  subsection,  any      period during  which any proceeding      under this  section is stayed by an      order or an injunction by Any court      shall be excluded."      It is  seen that against the order passed by any of the enumerated officers,  the remedy  of first  appeal has  been provided under  Section 49.  Against  the  appellate  orders under Section  49, Section  50 gives right of second appeal. Section 56  envisages that the Tribunal, any Revenue Officer not inferior  in rank to an Assistant Commissioner  may call for and examine the record of any enquiry or the proceedings

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

of any subordinate officer under the Act or under Section 54 of CPC  for the  purpose of satisfying itself or himself, as the case  may be,  as to  this legality  or propriety of the proceedings of  such officer.  Sub-section [3] provides that no application  shall be  exercised  against  any  order  in respect of  which an  appeal under  this Chapter  "has  been preferred"  (Emphasis   supplied)  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.   Two  limitations  have  been  prescribed  for exercising the  revisional power  under Section 56 , namely, the application  which seeks revision of the appellate order under Section  49 has  not preferred  any second  appeal  as provided under Section 50 of the Act; since Section 50 falls under that  Chapter, the application shall be filed within a period of  four months from the date of the appellant order. In other  words, if  the aggrieved  party has availed of the remedy of  second appeal  under  Section  50,  he  has  been precluded to again avail the revisional remedy under Section 56. It  does not  follow that  the party who had not availed the  second  appellate  remedy  under  Section  50  is  also prohibited to  file the  revision under Section 56. It would be clear  under the  scheme of the Act that the hierarchy of remedial forums  prescribed are the appeal under Section 49, second appeal  under Section  50 and  only a  revision under Section 56  of the  Act and  choice to  avail of  remedy  of second appeal  or a  revision under Section 50 or 56 is left to the  aggrieved party.  The further  scheme  is  that  the revisional authority  has power to suo motu correct legality or propriety  of the proceedings of any subordinate officers specially and  obviously when it touches the interest of the State.      Filing a  second appeal is a statutory remedy available to an  aggrieved party,  If the  party fails to avail of the remedy and  seeks the remedy of revisional jurisdiction, the party is  not precluded  from  availing  of  the  revisional jurisdiction Merely  because the  selfsame person  failed to avail of  the remedy  of second  appeal under Section 50. It would be  one of  the alternatives available to an aggrieved party. The  phrase "has  been preferred  " make  the  matter manifest that on availing of the remedy under Section 50, the remedy  under Section 56 gets exhausted. It would appear that the  High Court  proceeded on the basis of the language of the unamended sub-section (3) of Section 56 which existed prior  to  Amendment  Act  33/1975.  Therein,  the  language appears to  be that  when the  party failed  to avail of the second appellate  remedy, the  revisional jurisdiction under Section 56  was prohibited.  But  after  the  Amendment  Act 33/1975 the  language is  differently worded. Therefore, the party who  had availed  of the remedy of second appeal under Section 50,  is prohibited to avail of the revisional remedy under Section  56. The  High Court, therefore, was incorrect in its  conclusion that  the party  who did  not file second appeal under  Section 50,  is prohibited  to  avail  of  the remedy of  revision under Section 56. The order of the Joint Director, thereby,  is not a nullity or without jurisdiction since the  remedy under  Section  56  is  available  to  the appellant.      It is  contended by  Shri Santosh Hedge, learned senior counsel appearing  for the  respondents that  in view of the above conclusion,  the High  Court had  not  gone  into  the correctness of  the order  passed  by  the  Joint  Director. Though the respondent had availed of successive unsuccessful revisional remedies,  we  do  not  propose  to  express  any opinion on  merits. We set aside the order of the High Court

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

and remit  the matter to the High Court for consideration of the case according to law.      The appeal is allowed. No costs.