IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.25859 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri.S.A.Suresh, S/o Annaiah Hegde, Age 51 years, R/at Hegde Residence, Shrinagar, Sringeri Karkala Road, Sringeri Post and Taluk, Chikmagalur District – 577 139.
(By Sri.P.D.Subramanya, Advocate for Sri.S.P.Kulkarni, Advocate) AND:
... Petitioner 1. The State of Karnataka, Department of Revenue, Represented by Principal Secretary, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Deputy Commissioner, Chikmagalur District, Chikmagalur – 577 101.
3. The Thahsildar, Sringeri Taluk, Chikmagalur District – 577 139.
4. The Panchayath Development Officer, Vidyaranyapura Grama Panchayath, Sringeri Taluk, Chikmagalur District – 577 139.
... Respondents (By Smt.Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1 to R3) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the intimation/notice dated 25.04.2019 issued by the respondent No.3 being arbitrary, erroneous and not sustainable in law (Annexure-L) and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.P.D.Subramanya, learned counsel for Sri.S.P.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. Taking into account the order which this Court proposes to pass, it is not necessary to issue notice to the respondent No.4.
3. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
4. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of certiorari setting aside the intimation/notice vide No.LND:CR:9/2018-19 dated 25.04.2019 issued by respondent No.3 being arbitrary, erroneous and not sustainable in law.
5. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be granted liberty to submit a fresh representation with regard to his grievance to the competent authority and the competent authority be directed to decide the same in accordance with law.
6. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that in case such representation is submitted, the same shall be dealt with in accordance with law.
7. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner that in case he submits a fresh representation to the competent authority within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of such representation by a speaking order, after affording an opportunity of hearing to all necessary parties, in accordance with law.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-