IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI WRIT APPEAL NO.4932 OF 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER RAMANAGARA SUB-DIVISION, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT, RAMANAGARA-570 030.
3. THE TAHSILDAR RAMANAGARA TALUK, RAMANAGARA-570 030.
(BY SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) ...APPELLANTS AND:
SRI GOPALA SON OF LATE RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, SHESHAGIRIHALLI VILLAGE, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 511.
…RESPONDENT (BY SRI KIRAN S.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI K.G. SADASHIVAIAH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS WRIT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE ORDER DATED 07.07.2015 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.455 OF 2015 (KLR-RR/SUR) BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT, 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 07.07.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.455 of 2015, directing the Tahsildar to comply with the order of the Assistant Commissioner, respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 therein have filed this appeal.
2. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the appellants submit that aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, a review petition has been filed before the Deputy Commissioner in Review Petition Nos.72 and 73 of 2015-2016 and that the said review petition is still pending. The order of the learned Single Judge is to the effect that the Tahsildar shall comply with the order of the Assistant Commissioner. Since the order of the Assistant Commissioner is the subject matter of the review petition before the Deputy Commissioner and the same was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, appropriate interference is called for.
3. The review petition before the Deputy Commissioner was filed after the disposal of the impugned order herein. In view of the subsequent review petition pending adjudication, the order of the learned Single Judge, therefore cannot be complied with.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 07.07.2015, passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.455 of 2015, is set-aside.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE JJ/-