<p>The high court has said that the amendment to section 136(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act will be applicable only in respect of the original orders passed under Section 136(3) by the deputy commissioners/special deputy commissioners and not in respect of revisional orders passed by the deputy commissioners/special deputy commissioners.</p>.<p>Justice R Devdas said this while disposing of a batch of petitions filed challenging the Karnataka Land Revenue (Third Amendment) Act, 2024, whereby an additional tier of remedial measures is provided for the resolution of disputes arising out of the Record of Rights.</p>.<p>The state defended the amendment, contending that the appeal/review against the orders of the deputy commissioners to be heard by the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal will reduce the burden of the High Court.</p>.'Bengaluru traffic will teach you patience': Karnataka High Court to techie challenging road rage case.<p>“No further appeal or revision shall lie to the Tribunal against revisional orders passed under Section 136(3) of the Act. An order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act may either be appealable or revisable before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 49(b) or under Section 136(3) of the Act. Option is also available for an aggrieved party to file a revision petition before the Tribunal under Section 56 of the Act, if no appeal or revision is preferred before the Deputy Commissioner in respect of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner,” the court said.</p>.<p>The court said that providing another layer of forum to question the decision of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) does not overcome the decision of the Full Bench in the Ashok vs State of Karnataka case.</p>.<p>“With great difficulty, the Full Bench laid down the law that, despite an appeal remedy being availed of, nevertheless, a revision before the Deputy Commissioner would still lie under Section 136(3). Under such circumstances, if the State Legislature sought to provide for one more layer of remedial fora, then, without clarifying the position as to whether an appeal would thereafter lie or whether a second revision would lie before the Tribunal, the amending provision could not have been brought in,” Justice Devdas said.</p>
<p>The high court has said that the amendment to section 136(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act will be applicable only in respect of the original orders passed under Section 136(3) by the deputy commissioners/special deputy commissioners and not in respect of revisional orders passed by the deputy commissioners/special deputy commissioners.</p>.<p>Justice R Devdas said this while disposing of a batch of petitions filed challenging the Karnataka Land Revenue (Third Amendment) Act, 2024, whereby an additional tier of remedial measures is provided for the resolution of disputes arising out of the Record of Rights.</p>.<p>The state defended the amendment, contending that the appeal/review against the orders of the deputy commissioners to be heard by the Karnataka Revenue Appellate Tribunal will reduce the burden of the High Court.</p>.'Bengaluru traffic will teach you patience': Karnataka High Court to techie challenging road rage case.<p>“No further appeal or revision shall lie to the Tribunal against revisional orders passed under Section 136(3) of the Act. An order passed by the Assistant Commissioner under Section 136(2) of the Act may either be appealable or revisable before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 49(b) or under Section 136(3) of the Act. Option is also available for an aggrieved party to file a revision petition before the Tribunal under Section 56 of the Act, if no appeal or revision is preferred before the Deputy Commissioner in respect of an order passed by the Assistant Commissioner,” the court said.</p>.<p>The court said that providing another layer of forum to question the decision of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) does not overcome the decision of the Full Bench in the Ashok vs State of Karnataka case.</p>.<p>“With great difficulty, the Full Bench laid down the law that, despite an appeal remedy being availed of, nevertheless, a revision before the Deputy Commissioner would still lie under Section 136(3). Under such circumstances, if the State Legislature sought to provide for one more layer of remedial fora, then, without clarifying the position as to whether an appeal would thereafter lie or whether a second revision would lie before the Tribunal, the amending provision could not have been brought in,” Justice Devdas said.</p>
