IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.51719 OF 2016 (GM-R/C) BETWEEN:
1. NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS S/O LATE GOOLIGOWDA, R/AT LEELAVATHI EXTENSION, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.
2. NANJEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS S/O LATE GOOLIGOWDA, R/AT LEELAVATHI EXTENSION, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.
3. SMT SUSHEELAMMA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS W/O LATE PARASHURAM, R/O KELAGALA BEEDHI, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.
4. PARAMESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS S/O LATE PARASHURAM, R/O KELAGALA BEEDHI, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.
5. SMT PAVITHRA AGED ABOUT 28YEARS D/O LATE PARASHURAM, R/O KELAGALA BEEDHI, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.
6. YOGA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS S/O LATE PARASHURAM, R/O KELAGALA BEEDHI, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.
7. DIVYA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O LATE PARASHURAM, R/O KELAGALA BEEDHI, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.
8. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS S/O LATE GOOLIGOWDA, R/AT LEELAVATHI EXTENSION, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.
9. CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O LATE GOOLIGOWDA, R/AT LEELAVATHI EXTENSION, MADDUR TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT.
10.SMT MARITHAYAMMA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS W/O LATE SRIKANTAIAH, R/O DODDI BEEDHI, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.
11.C NAGESH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS S/O LATE SRIKANTAIAH, R/O DODDI BEEDHI, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT.
12.RAVI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O LATE SRIKANTAIAH, R/O DODDI BEEDHI, MADDUR TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT. … PETITIONERS (By Mr. H C SHIVARAMU, ADV.) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA-571 401.
2. SRI LAKSHMI NARASIMHA DEVARU REPRESENTED BY MUZRAI OFFICER AND THASILDAR MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401.
3. THASILDAR AND MUZRAI OFFICER MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. V SHIVAREDDY LEARNED HCGP) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned order of the R-1 dtd.25.1.2016 at Annex-K and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Sri.V.Shivareddy, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 25.01.2016 passed by the respondent No.1.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioners has raised a similar contention that the documents filed by the petitioners along with objections including sketch was not considered by the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner, on the other hand, has recorded a finding that the relevant documents are not available. Learned Additional Government Advocate was unable to point out from the impugned order that the documents annexed by the petitioners along with the objections were considered while passing the impugned order.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and taking into account the fact that the documents annexed with the objections filed by the petitioners were not considered by the Deputy Commissioner while passing the impugned order dated 25.01.2016 which have a material herein on the controversy involved in the petition. Therefore, the impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner to decide the issue afresh by a speaking order, after taking into consideration the documents annexed by the petitioners along with the objections and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV