IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.3354 OF 2018 (KLR-LG) BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT, KANDAYA BHAVANA, BENGALURU-560 009. ... APPELLANTS (BY SRI G. KRISHNA MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL) AND:
SRI C. GANGADHARA MURTHY SON OF SRI CHENNIGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, NO.322, III-A CROSS, II BLOCK, III STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079.
... RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANDRAKANTH PATIL K., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.01.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.54567 OF 2017.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant - State being aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No.54567 of 2017, dated 17.01.2018. In terms of the said order, the second respondent – Deputy Commissioner was directed to consider the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-L, dated 31.03.2008, and to remove 1 acre, 30 guntas of land in Survey No.83 of 1, which is shown as ‘B’ Kharab and assess the same as arable land.
2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the Deputy Commissioner is liable to consider the representation of the petitioner. However, subsequent directions may not be in tune with law.
3. Sri.G. Krishna Murthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the counsel representing respondent No.1, pleads that substantial material has been placed before the learned Single Judge, who after considering the same has passed the aforesaid order. Therefore, no fault could be found with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge.
4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that appropriate interference is called for. The instant writ petition was filed seeking for a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to consider the representation vide Annexure-L and to pass necessary orders thereon, etc. Therefore, what should have been granted is merely a direction to the second respondent to consider the representation. We are of the view that all subsequent orders may not be appropriate. It is for the concerned authority to consider the representation and thereafter pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The manner as to how the order is to be passed, with regard to the rights of the parties cannot be determined by a writ court. That jurisdiction is only with the Deputy Commissioner.
5. Under these circumstances, the appeal is disposed off. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 17.01.2018, passed in Writ Petition No.54567 of 2017 is set-aside. The second respondent – Deputy Commissioner is directed to consider the representation of the petitioner vide Annexure-L, dated 31.03.2008, and pass appropriate orders within a period of four weeks from the date of appearance to the petitioners before him. The writ petitioners to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 21.10.2019. The Deputy Commissioner shall dispose off the matter within a period of four weeks thereafter.
6. All contentions of the parties are kept open.
The petitioners are also entitled to place any additional material as required.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE JJ/-