IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT APPEAL No.3343/2018 (SC – ST) Between:
Sri. Chennarayappa @ Gonnur Channarayappa, Aged about 72 years, S/o late Bachappa, Residing at Kempathimmanahalli Village, Kundana Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District – 562 110.
(By Sri. K.S.Bheemaiah, Advocate) And :
1. The Deputy Commissioner, Podium Block, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Chikkaballapura Sub – Division, Podium Block, Bangalore – 560 001.
3. Sri.Munidasappa, S/o late Appaga, …Appellant Aged about 61 years, R/a Kempathimanahalli Village, Kundanna Hobli, Devanahalli Taluk, Bangalore Rural District – 562 110.
4. Smt. P. Yashodha, W/o Ramanjani, Aged about 68 years, R/at No.1009, 1st Cross, Behind P & T Colony, R.T.Nagar Post, Bangalore – 560 032.
(By Sri. S.S.Mahendra, AGA for R1 to R2; Sri.R.Nataraj, Advocate for R3;
Sri. Rakshith K.N., Advocate for R4) ...Respondents This Writ Appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order dated 19.09.2018 passed by the Learned Single Judge and permit the appellant to withdraw W.P. 41136/2012.
This Writ Appeal coming on for admission this day, Narayana Swamy J, Delivered the following:
JUDGMENT I.A. No.1/2018 is allowed and the delay is condoned.
The Appellant in the writ petition has challenged the order passed by the Asst. Commissioner, Doddaballapur Sub-division, dated 13.7.2009 and the order dated 17.7.2012 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore dated 17.7.2012 under Karnataka SC & ST (PTCL) Act. The applicant who claims to be the agreement holder in respect of the granted land, made an application to come on record. The said application has been allowed. Thereafter, the memo has been filed by the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner for withdrawing the writ petition and the same has been rejected by the learned Single Judge. Against which, this appeal has been filed with a prayer to allow the appellant to withdraw the writ petition.
2. The impleading applicant who wanted to come on record in the writ petition, has contended that if the petition is permitted to be withdrawn, great hardship would be caused to him and he was not a party before the Asst. Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner and hence in case the writ petition is withdrawn, the order of the Deputy Commissioner would attain finality. He submits that he has filed a suit before the Sr. Civil Judge, Devanahalli and the said suit filed for declaration gets affected in case if the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the writ petition.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties. When the petitioner-appellant submits that he is not willing to prosecute the writ petition, it is not for the court to direct the appellant to prosecute the writ petition. The appellant submits that he is a grantee and in possession of the property and he felt that it is unnecessary and he does not want to prosecute the writ petition. The learned counsel for the appellant who has filed a memo for withdrawing the petition, cannot be restrained from withdrawing the same. Under these circumstances, we allow the memo for withdrawal of the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. In case if the agreement holder has any grievance, he can prosecute the case separately in the original suit pending before the Court at Devanahalli.
SD/- JUDGE SD/- JUDGE nm