IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT APPEAL NO.4250 OF 2015 (KLR/RR/SUR) BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M S BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU-560 001.
3. THE THASILDAR BENGALURU EAST TALUK K R PURAM BENGALURU-560 049. … APPELLANTS (BY SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGA) AND:
SRI P KRISHNAPPA SON OF LATE PAPAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT GUNDUR VILLAGE BIDARAHALLI TALUK – 562 114 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI R BHADRINATH, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.45021 OF 2011 DATED 25.2.2013.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH.,J DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
J U D G M E N T Aggrieved by the order dated 25.2.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.45021 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition and directing the respondent – State to enter the petitioner’s name in the revenue records, the State has filed this appeal.
2. The learned Single Judge while considering the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner looked into the original records, examined the records and came to the conclusion that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Commissioner is not a reflection of the records. Therefore, the order of the Deputy Commissioner was set aside directing the respondent – State to enter the name of the petitioner in the revenue records.
3. We are of the considered view that what comes out of the records is quite different from the impugned order. The appropriate remedy was to remit the matter to the concerned Authority for reconsideration. It is not for the learned Single Judge to record a finding of fact. Under these circumstances, recording a finding of fact for the first time is not appropriate. It is for the concerned Authority to do so. The authority has to examine the records and then record a finding.
4. Under these circumstances, the writ appeal is allowed. The order dated 25.2.2013 passed in Writ Petition No.45021 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition is disposed off with the following directions:
a) The order of the Deputy Commissioner is set aside.
b) The matter is remitted to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh consideration in accordance with law after examining the records.
c) All contentions are kept open.
None of the observations made by the learned Single Judge or in this order, shall come in the way of the Deputy Commissioner to pass a fresh order. Till the Deputy Commissioner passes an order, the possession of the respondent shall remain undisturbed.
In view of long passage of time, respondent to appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 16th December, 2019 without any further notice.
The Deputy Commissioner is directed to dispose off the matter within a period of twelve weeks thereafter.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE bkm