Holding

A party’s failure to avail the statutory second‑appeal remedy under Section 50 does not bar the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 56; thus, the High Court’s finding that the revision was untenable was incorrect.

Summary

The dispute arose from a family partition and subsequent land demarcation ordered by the Assistant Director of Land Records, which was challenged by the respondents. The respondents appealed the demarcation order under Section 49 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1956, and the appeal was allowed, setting aside the original order. The appellant then sought revision of that appellate order under Section 56, which was initially allowed by the Joint Director but later contested, leading to a series of revisions and a writ petition. The Karnataka High Court held that because the appellant had not filed a second appeal under Section 50, the revision under Section 56 was not maintainable and declared the Joint Director’s order a nullity. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme and held that the failure to avail the second‑appeal remedy does not preclude a party from invoking the revisional jurisdiction of Section 56; consequently, the High Court’s conclusion was erroneous and the order of the Joint Director was valid. The appeal was allowed, the High Court’s order set aside, and the matter remitted to the High Court for further consideration.

Issues considered

Whether a party who does not file a second appeal under Section 50 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1956 is precluded from filing a revision under Section 56 of the same Act.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 54

Subjects

Land revenueDemarcationSecond appealRevisionKarnataka Land Revenue ActStatutory remedyJurisdictionNullity

Judgment

---- SMT. PUITAHONNAMMA
v.
A

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.
D
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.
E
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 : F

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 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 :

In a Family partition on February 11, 1953, the properties were
divided between two branches. In furtherance thereof, a further partition
B 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.
,..J-

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

f-
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: 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 B
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 :
c
(a) if such an order is passed by the Assistant Commissioner, to
the !)eputy Commissioner;

(b) if such an order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner, to the
Tribunal;
D
(bl) if such an order is passed by the Assistant Superintendent for
Settlement or the Assistant Superintendent of Land Records, to
the Di~ector of Survey, Settlement and Land Records;

(c) if such an order is passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Land E
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 read thus : F
"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 proceed- G
ings of any subordinate officer under this Act or under Section 54
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908) for
.1

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 (* * *) H
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A Explanation: For the purposes of this sub-section,

(i) Special Duty Commissioner shall be deemed to be not subor-
dinate to the Deputy Commissioner; and

(ii) all revenue officers shall be deemed to be subordinate to the
·B 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
c 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 oppor-
tunity given to them of being heard.
D
(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
p_referred and no application for revision shall be entertained
E 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
F this Chapter, at any time within three years from the date of the
order sought to be revised.

Explanation : In computing the period of limitation for the purpose
of this Sub-section, any period during which any proceeding under
this section is stayed by-an order or an injunction by any court
G
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
H second appeal. Section 56 envisages that the Tribunal, any Revenue Officer
PUTIAHONNAMMA v. C.G. MURTHY 79

not inferior in rank to an Assistant Commissioner. ............ may call for and A
examine the record of any enquiry or the proceedings of any sub~rdinate
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 the legality or propriety
· of the proceedings of such officer. Sub-section (3) provides that no applica-
tion shall be exercised against any order in respect of which an appeal
B
---- under this Chapter "has been prefen-ed" (Emphasis supplied) and no ap-
plication 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(1) namely, the application which seeks revision of the appellate
order under Section 49 has not· preferred any second appeal as provided c
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 appellate 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 D
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 E
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.
F
Filing a second appeal is a statutory remed¥ 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 G
preferred" makes 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 un-
·amended 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 H
80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS - [1996) 2 S.C.R.
\
\,. -
A to avail of the second appeUate 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 incor-
B rect 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 Hegde, learned senior counsel ap-
C pearing 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 and remit the matter to the High
Court for consideration of the case according to law.
D
The appeal iS allowed. No costs.

G.N. Appeal allowed. 1