IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT APPEAL NO.2866 OF 2013 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S CHINTAMANI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (R) KISHORE VIDYA BHAVAN CHINTAMANI REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT SHRI CHOWDA REDDY SON OF LATE M.C.ANJANEYA REDDY AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS RESIDING AT MALLAPALLI TOWN CHINTAMANI TOWN CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-563 125.
... APPELLANT (BY SRI: S.N.ASWATHANARAYAN, ADVOCATE FOR M/S. ACC ASSOCIATES) AND:
1. SHRI M. C. RAJU SON OF LATE DODDA CHOWDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT MALAPALLI CHINTAMANI TOWN CHINTAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-563 125 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KOLAR DISTRICT KOLAR-563 130.
3. SHRI ANJANEYA REDDY SON OF LATE CHIKKA CHOWDA REDDY RESIDING AT MALAPALLI CHINTAMANI TOWN CHINTAMANI TALUK CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT-563 125.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI:G.PAPIREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI:E.S.INDIRESH, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R2;
R3 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.31929 OF 2009 DATED 04.01.2013 AND ETC., ***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 04.01.2013 in Writ Petition No.31929 of 2009, in setting aside the impugned order therein and remanding the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for re- examination, the second respondent before the learned Single Judge has filed this appeal.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellant contends that substantial material was placed for consideration before the Deputy Commissioner, which he has failed to consider. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the order of the Deputy Commissioner does not show awareness about the subject land being in possession of some unauthorized occupants, is erroneous. Therefore, he pleads that the matters be reconsidered by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
3. The same is disputed by the respondents’ Counsel.
4. On hearing learned Counsels, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The learned Single Judge has quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Deputy Commissioner with a direction that he shall re- examine and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law and take appropriate action as narrated therein. It is needless to state that the appellant is always at liberty to furnish all such materials in support of the case before the Deputy Commissioner. The State and the other parties are also entitled to place material before him. Therefore, we do not find any grounds to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. All contentions before the Deputy Commissioner are kept open. Parties are at liberty to produce additional material in support of their respective case also.
The appeal is accordingly disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *bgn/-