IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT APPEAL NO.6085 OF 2015 (KLR-REG) BETWEEN:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY TO RVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.
3. COMMITTEE FOR REGULARISATION OF UNAUTHORISED CULTIVATION BY ITS SECRETARY AND TAHASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.
4. THE TAHASILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.
...APPELLANTS (BY SRI: KIRAN KUMAR T.L., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND:
SRI G.S. PUTTASWAMY SON OF LATE SREENIVASAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDING AT UDAYAPALYA KAGGALIPURA POST, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK.
(SRI G.S. PUTTASWAMY, RESPONDENT SERVED-UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 03.12.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WRIT PETITION NO.33304 OF 2015 (KLR-REG) AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS DEEMS FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
***** THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 03.12.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.33304 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge, in allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned order of the Assistant Commissioner and directing the Tahsildar to pass an order under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 108D of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, (for short ‘the Rules’) and awarding a cost of Rs.1,00,000/-, the State have filed this appeal.
2. The learned Government Advocate submits that in pursuant to the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, an order has been passed under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 108D of the Rules, which has been produced as Annexure-R1 dated 29.12.2015. Therefore, since the order of the learned Single Judge having been complied with, no further orders are called for, to this extent. However, he pleads that the imposition of cost of Rs.1,00,000/- awarded by the learned Single Judge, be set aside.
3. On considering the contention, we are of the view that costs are unjustified. Even though an error may have been committed by the State, that does not warrant imposition of such a heavy cost. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge in awarding cost requires to be set aside.
4. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 03.12.2015 passed in Writ Petition No.33304 of 2015 by the learned Single Judge, in so far it pertains to the issuance of direction to the Tahsildar to pass an order under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 108D of the Rules, has since been complied with, the cost of Rs.1,00,000/- as awarded by the learned Single Judge, is set aside.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE *bgn/-