- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45125 WP No. 29070 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 29070 OF 2017 (KVOA) BETWEEN: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER RAMANAGAR DISTRICT RAMANAGAR- 562 159. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGAR SUB DIVISION RAMANAGAR DISTRICT- 562 159. 3. THE TAHSILDAR MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT- 562 120. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJ KUMAR M., AGA) AND: SRI. M REVANNA SIDDAIAH S/O LATE VEERA MALIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS R/A KALARI VILLAGE AND POST, MAGADI TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT- 562 120 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. AMOGHA R SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJESWARA P N, ADVOCATE) THIS W.P. FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45125 WP No. 29070 of 2017 RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE RAMANAGAR IN M.A.NO.14/2008 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER The State has preferred this writ petition assailing the order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagar (for short 'the Appellate Court') in MA.No.14/2008, whereby the Appellate Court set aside the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagar District dated 24.09.2008 and restored the allowance earlier sanctioned in favour of the respondent by order dated 11.07.2003. 2. Brief facts of this case are as under: The respondent's father, late Veera Maliyappa, was the original Patel Baravardar, officiating the Patel of Kalari and Kodipalya Villages in Kasaba Hobli, Magadi Taluk. After abolition of the Village Offices under the Karnataka - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45125 WP No. 29070 of 2017 Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961 (for short 'KVOA Act'), the respondent applied for payment of monthly remuneration in terms of the Government Order dated 19.11.1997, which extended ex-gratia allowance to the former, Village Offices and their legal heirs. Acting upon the Tahsildar's recommendation, the Deputy Commissioner sanctioned Rs.500 per month to the respondent by order dated 11.07.2003. Subsequently, upon certain complaints that the respondent was not working as a Patel but worked as a Branch Post Master from 1982 to 1996, the newly constituted Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagar by order dated 24.09.2008, cancelled the earlier sanctioned allowance and directed him to recover the amount already paid. The respondent challenged the said order before the Appellate Court in MA.No.14/2008, which was allowed, holding that the Deputy Commissioner had no jurisdiction to review his earlier order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45125 WP No. 29070 of 2017 3. Heard learned Addl. Government Advocate for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record. 4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the petitioners submits that the order of the Appellate Court is illegal and perverse, as the respondent was never appointed as a Patel by the Government nor did he discharge such duties, and that the postal records establish that he worked as a Post Master, and that implementation of the impugned order would impose unwarranted financial burden on the State. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the respondent's father Veera Maliyappa was recorded as a Patel Baravardar and he was officiating as a Patel, during his father's illness receiving potige in the years 1962-63, 1993-64. Learned counsel submits that the Tahsildar's report confirmed this fact and recommended him for allowance, which the Deputy - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45125 WP No. 29070 of 2017 Commissioner rightly confirmed on 11.07.2003. Further, the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner has remained in force, until its unauthorised cancellation in the year 2008. Learned counsel contends that Section 9(3) of the KVOA Act, provides an appellate remedy to the Divisional Commissioner (now the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal), who could entertain an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner, and there is no provision empowering the Deputy Commissioner to revive or annul his own order either Suo-moto or on a complaint and hence, the order dated 24.09.2008 is void for want of jurisdiction. Learned counsel further contends that the villagers who complained had no rival claim or legal interest in the Patel's office and their complaint was motivated. He also contends that the Deputy Commissioner had no statutory power to re-open and cancel his own order granting allowance under KVOA Act. 6. This Court has carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the materials on record. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45125 WP No. 29070 of 2017 7. The question that arises for consideration is as under: "Whether the Deputy Commissioner was justified to annul/review his own order dated 11.07.2003, granting allowance under the KVOA Act?". 8. Section 9(3) of the KVOA Act provides a statutory appeal to the Divisional Commissioner against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The KVOA Act does not empower the Deputy Commissioner to review / annul / recall its own order either Suo-moto or on a complaint. The respondent had earlier preferred WP.No.17615/2007(KVOA) before this Court against the Endorsement dated 18.04.2007 issued by the Tahsildar. This Court held that the Deputy Commissioner shall expedite the enquiry and pass appropriate orders on the merits of the enquiry and allowed the said writ petition by setting aside the endorsement passed by the Tahsildar. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45125 WP No. 29070 of 2017 The order dated 11.07.2003 was not challenged by the State and that order has attained finality. Hence, the subsequent cancellation by the Deputy Commissioner dated 24.09.2008 suffers from jurisdictional illegality and was rightly set aside by the Appellate Court. 9. The contention that the respondent was working as a Post Master cannot cure the inherent lack of jurisdiction defect. The principle of functus officio squarely applies. The Deputy Commissioner could not have reopened, reviewed or modified his own order in the absence of any express statutory power of review. The KVOA Act confers no such power. The impugned order dated 24.09.2008 is therefore, wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the settled principle that an authority which has once exercised its statutory function becomes functus officio and cannot reopen the matter. This Court in WP.No.17615/2007 held as under: - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45125 WP No. 29070 of 2017 "Issue rule. The learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice to respondents. 2. The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for quashing of endorsement at Annexure-E issued by the 3rd respondent on the ground that he has no authority to issue the said endorsement. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was discharging the duties as Patel of Kalari and Kodipalya villages in Magadi Taluk. After the abolition of the Village Offices, in terms of Section 9(2) of the Village Offices Abolition Act, 1961, he made an application to the competent authority i.e., the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District requesting him to grant monthly pension towards Patel Allowance. The Deputy Commissioner by an order dated 11-7-2003 has granted monthly pension of Rs.500/- with effect from 1.1.1994 as per Annexure-A. He has been receiving the said amount. Some persons who are inimical towards the petitioner and to deprive the petitioner of his legitimate pensionary benefit appears to have lodged a complaint making baseless allegations against him. The petitioner has also submitted a statement refuting the allegations made against him as per Annexure-D. The Tahsildar of Magadi Taluk has unilaterally stopped payment of pension to the petitioner pending enquiry in this regard by an endorsement dated 18-4-2007, which is impugned in - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45125 WP No. 29070 of 2017 this writ petition. Therefore, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the said endorsement. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. The pension which is paid to the petitioner is granted by the Deputy Commissioner by virtue of power conferred under Section 9(2) of the Act. Now the complaint is made to the Deputy Commissioner alleging that the petitioner has obtained pension by giving false information and suppressing facts. The petitioner has Version filed his version before the authorities. The matter is pending enquiry before the Deputy Commissioner. In those circumstances, the Tahsildar who has no jurisdiction whatsoever in the matter has issued this Annexure-B, withholding pension amount till the enquiry is completed. As the Tahsildar is not the person who has granted pension, he has no jurisdiction to withhold the payment of pension, pending enquiry. Therefore, the impugned endorsement Annexure-E is one without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed. However, a person who is not entitled to pension would not be entitled to pension till the enquiry is complete. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Deputy Commissioner shall expedite the enquiry and pass appropriate orders on merits of the enquiry so that the interests of the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45125 WP No. 29070 of 2017 petitioner as well the public at large would be met. In that view of the matter, I pass the following order: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. ii) The impugned endorsement at Annexure-E passed by the Tahsildar is quashed. iii) Parties to bear their own costs." 10. The Appellate Court after appreciating the entire material has rightly restored the earlier sanction order. This Court finds no perversity, illegality or infirmity warranting interference and accordingly, the point framed for consideration is answered and this Court pass the following: ORDER i) The writ petition is dismissed. ii) The impugned order dated 27.01.2014 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ramanagar in MA.No.14/2008 stands confirmed. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45125 WP No. 29070 of 2017 iii) The petitioners are directed to continue pay remuneration to the respondent as held by the Deputy Commissioner in its order dated 11.07.2003. Sd/- _____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4