Karnataka HC Quashes Orders Setting Aside Land Mutations, Sends Appeals Filed 5 And 32 Years Later Back For Delay To Be Decided First

The petitioner challenged orders of the Assistant Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner concerning two mutation entries.

In W.P. No. 138867/2020, the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner challenged a mutation in MR No. 23/1979–80 after approximately 32 years; in W.P. No. 138868/2020, the appeal challenged a mutation in MR No. 10/2007–08 after approximately five years.

The Assistant Commissioner set aside the mutation orders and remitted the matters to the Tahasildar; the Deputy Commissioner upheld those orders in revision.

The petitioner contended that delay had been condoned ex parte, without notice, and that the orders lacked adequate reasons

Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, provides the statutory basis for an appeal concerning mutation proceedings

The Court’s reasoning required that the affected party have an opportunity to contest an application for condonation of delay, particularly where the delay was substantial, and that the authority give a reasoned decision on delay before proceeding to the merits

The petitioner cited Dharmoji Devendra Kadabi v. Assistant Commissioner, Belgaum and Others, 1999 (6) Kar.L.J. 297, and a decision in W.P. Nos. 20293/2017 c/w 20344/2017; the judgment records those authorities as submissions made by counsel, rather than setting out or expressly adopting their rules

The Court found that the Assistant Commissioner had condoned the delay without issuing notice to the petitioner on that question, including in the case involving a delay of more than three decades

It also found that the Assistant Commissioner’s and Deputy Commissioner’s orders were cryptic and did not properly discuss the reasons for their decisions

Because the delay issue had not been properly considered after an opportunity to be heard, and the orders lacked sufficient reasoning, the Court set them aside and remitted the appeals for reconsideration.

It did not determine the merits of the mutation disputes

The orders of the Assistant Commissioner dated 25 August 2015 and the Deputy Commissioner dated 23 October 2019 were set aside.

The appeals were remitted to the Assistant Commissioner to first decide the question of delay under Section 136(2), after granting the petitioner an opportunity to contest both delay and the merits.

The Assistant Commissioner was directed to pass a reasoned order on delay before considering the appeals on their merits; no order as to costs was made