Revenue authorities cannot use Section 136(2) proceedings to adjudicate civil rights settled by a civil court.

The Tahsildar initiated proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, alleging that although Survey No. 77, Block 1 had been granted to Venkata Shetty in 1961–62 and a Saguvali Chit issued in 1995, he was not in possession of the land.

The Assistant Commissioner passed an order in those proceedings, and the Deputy Commissioner dismissed the petitioners’ revision and directed that the proceedings continue.

The petitioners challenged both orders.

They relied on a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction concerning the land, decreed in their favour and affirmed on appeal and in second appeal.

Respondent No. 4 asserted that he had purchased four acres in Survey No. 77/2 from Subbamma in 1994.

1. Whether proceedings under Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, alleging that the petitioners were not in possession, could continue in light of the civil court decrees concerning the subject land.

2. Whether the revenue authorities could determine the parties’ civil rights in the subject land through those proceedings.

The Court considered Section 136(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, under which the authorities had initiated the proceedings.

It applied the principle that revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to decide civil rights between parties.

The Court also considered the civil court decrees declaring and protecting the petitioners’ claim to the land, which had been affirmed on appeal and in second appeal.

The proceedings rested on the allegation that the petitioners were not in possession, but the civil suit concerning the land had been decreed in Venkata Shetty’s favour and affirmed through the appellate process.

In light of those decrees, the Court concluded that the petitioners were in possession and that the revenue authorities could not use Section 136(2) proceedings to decide the parties’ civil rights.

It therefore held the impugned proceedings to be bad in law.

It directed the Tahsildar to enter the petitioners’ names in the revenue records for the subject land forthwith.