IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION NO.42925 OF 2011(KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
SMT.MYMUNNISA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O SYED RASOL, RESIDING AT NO.18/2, 9TH ‘A’ MAIN, 2ND CROSS, 1ST STAGE, BTM LAYOUT, BENGALURU – 560 029. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.K.ACHARYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI VIGHNESHWARA U., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DISTRICT, BENGALURU.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU.
3. THE TAHASILDAR K.R.PURAM, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU.
4. MUNIYELLAPPA (SINCE DECEASED) BY HIS L.R. M.RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE MUNIYELLAPPA, RESIDENT OF KADUGODI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI T.S.MAHANTHESH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 VIDE ORDER DATED 17.10.2016, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) ***** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.4.2010 PASSED ON THE FILE OF THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The plea of the petitioner is that she purchased the land in question in terms of the registered sale deed dated 18-2-1978. Even then her name was not entered in the records. The name of the father of 4th respondent was entered in the revenue records. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The appeal was allowed. It was directed that the name of the petitioner be entered in the records. Aggrieved by the same, the 4th respondent preferred a revision before the Deputy Commissioner. The Deputy Commissioner was of the view that the matter requires to be re-considered by the Assistant Commissioner. Hence, the order of the Assistant Commissioner was set aside and the matter was remanded to him for a fresh consideration. The said order is under challenge.
2. On hearing learned counsels, I’am of the considered view that there is no merit in this petition. The order of the Deputy Commissioner is an order of remand to the Assistant Commissioner for a fresh consideration in accordance with law. Normally the Court would not interfere in an order of remand unless there are very special grounds that are made out. I do not find any special circumstance to interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
However, in view of the long pendency of the dispute, the Assistant Commissioner is directed to pass orders within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. None of the findings recorded by the Deputy Commissioner shall influence the Assistant Commissioner while passing fresh orders.
SD/- JUDGE Rsk/-