IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. PANDIT WRIT APPEAL NO.198 OF 2016 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. NINGANNA SON OF LATE MADAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 2. MUDDA VEERAIAH SON OF CHILLAMAYIGAIAH AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS BOTH RESIDING OF CHENNAPPANAPURA VILLAGE HARADANAHALLI HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE-571313.
... APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SOMASHEKAR KASHIMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. VEERABHADRAPPA SON OF LATE ANKAPPA AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING OF CHENNAPPANAPURA VILLAGE HARDANAHALLI HOBLI CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK AND DISTRICT PIN CODE-571313.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDINGS K.R. CIRCLE DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU -560001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313.
4. THE TAHSILDHAR CHAMARAJANAGAR TALUK CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHESH R UPPIN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.1 SRI. LAXMINARAYAN, AGA. FOR RESPONDENT Nos.2 TO 4) THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.8630/2015 DATED 21/07/2015.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8630 of 2015, the applicants in I.A.No.2 of 2016 have preferred this appeal.
2. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order was of the view, that the representation of the writ petitioner to continue his name in the revenue records, was not considered therefore, a mandamus has been issued.
3. The appellants’ counsel submits that mandamus could not have been issued, since all the material on record are against the plea of the petitioner.
4. However, we do not intend to go into the subject matter of this appeal on merits. If at all there are any rights affected, necessarily the Tahsildar would have to take note of those facts. The impugned order dated 21.07.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.8630 of 2015 is only to pass orders on the petitioner’s representation to continue his name in the revenue records as it was earlier to the year 2000 and directing the respondents to consider the representation of the writ petitioner by considering all the available material on record and also after hearing the appellants herein.
Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed off.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE NG* CT:bms